|
|
| Mr. D |
Theres a couple reasons. First, the Beatles were the band that began the whole London Invasion that took over America. The Beatles were already huge the first time they came to the States. The Stones were barely known the first time they toured in the US. Also, the Beatles music is considered more sophisticated than anybody else's, because of their songwriting. That may be true, but when you look at true rock music, the Stones, the Who, and Zeppelin all rank higher. I think historically speaking, the Beatles are the 'best ever', because they started the Invason. But, for a band that has consistantly made great music for years and years, you gotta look at the Rolling fuckin Stones. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
1 reason
stones are the stones, you love them ore don't
the beatles are the beatles, you can like them a bit |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
It's a mystery.....can't be mystified. |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Simple...
And you know all you Beatle fans this is true.
When the Beatles first started, they were considerd the good boys of rock.
The Stones were considerd the bad boys of rock.
The Beatles had this goody 2 shoe bee bop way.
The Stones had longer hair and did things that the Beatles wouldn't.
THEN, the beatles changed, they grew the long hair, they took the acid, they did the drugs.
The Stones, never changed for nobody.
What gets me sick is Maul PcCartney's rain forest, save the whales shit.
What do you call a dog w/ wings?
Linda McCartney.
|
|
|
| FotiniD |
I think one of the main reasons has to do with the fact that the Stones never split up and their singer's still alive. The Beatles didn't stay as a band until they were sixty, and so there's no telling how great or badly they would have developed musically and all... So in the collective thought they're remembered ever-young and spotless. And of course John Lennon's death added to the legend.
Sometimes I can't help wondering how things would have evolved, had the Beatles never split up and John being still alive... Can you imagine the Beatles keep touring even today? They weren't too much into touring anyway, but imagine this... A 2003 40-anniversay tour for both Beatles and Stones!!! Crazy. |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Didn't the Bealtes quit before Lennon (I am Jesus) died? |
|
|
| Moonisup |
quote:
steel driving hammer wrote:
Didn't the Bealtes quit before Lennon (I am Jesus) died?
john talked mouth, that is what I think |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
Imagine there's no Beatles
It's easy if you try
No Paul below us
Above us only Stones
Imagine all the people
Living for tonights sold out Rolling Stones concert.
Imagine there's no Ringo Star
It isn't hard to do.
You can't say I'm a dreamer
And I'm not the only one w/ Mixed Emotions
I hope someday you'll join us Stones fans
And the world will be as one.
Imagine no Revolver
I wonder if you can
No need for over ratings
A brotherhood of Stones
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the Stones booglegs.
LOL. |
|
|
| Moonisup |
POETRY |
|
|
| L&A |
SDH  |
|
|
| Pattie |
*whipes tear from eye* that was beautiful!!!!!
I especially like the "imagine no revolver" one! haha |
|
|
| Prodigal Son |
Though as regular guys the Beatles may have been just as dirty and rude at first, they were formed into a cutesy nice guy group. The reason people prefer them is clear: they were inoffensive, mostly light on the ears, cute n' cuddly and spoke like prophets. But the Stones are rude, dirty, sleazy, loud, brash, offensive, daring and spoke of dark n' disturbing things. It's like today; why do people prefer a band like Creed or Matchbox 20 over someone like the Black Crowes or the Vines and all that garage-band stuff? Because it's rather bland and simple and people like music that doesn't really challenge you to think or analyze. Now, the Beatles did make people do so but not as much as the Stones. The Stones believed in love, but were more interested in preaching the wilder, ironic side of life. |
|
|
| Ctiger2 |
Lest we forget who taught the Beatles to even write interesting songs.....Bob Dylan....1964 |
|
|
| MRD8 |
You people are all missing the point here, I think most of you weren't old enough to remember when the Beatles came to America the first time in '64...the Beatles were as much a cultural phenom and they were a musical phenom...they changed the way we dress, talk...the length of mens hair...most of us old farts can remember seeing them on the Ed Sullivan show the same way we remember the day Kennedy was shot or the Challenger exploded...it was that big an event in our lives!  The main thing every rock fan should thank the Beatles for is opening America for the British Invasion...if it hadn't been for them opening the door you NEVER would've heard of the Stones, The Animals, The Yardbirds...NONE of them would've ever been heard outside of the Britsh Isles...for that every rock fan should thank the Beatles...they changed all of our lives forever! |
|
|
| VoodooChileInWOnderl |
Beatles = I wanna hold your hand
Stones = I just wanna make love to you
Beatles = Love me do
Rolling Stones = Let's Spend the night together |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
quote:
VoodooChileInWOnderl wrote:
Beatles = I wanna hold your hand
Stones = I just wanna make love to you
Beatles = Love me do
Rolling Stones = Let's Spend the night together
Voodoo that was so good.
I bet there's even more Stones/Beatle tracks to compare like that.
Cheers. |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
MRD8, you have a point, but the Stones just seem/ed like a more creative and versatile group.
Plus, they actually hit the road to play for fans, unlike the Beatles. Am I wrong about this? |
|
|
| Gazza |
Yeah well the Stones also wrote "As tears go by" and "Blue turns to grey" etc so not all their love songs were dark and nasty. the good/bad thing is a bit of a cliche. Look at it this way,the Stones never showed their bollocks on an album cover....Lennon did...in 1968!! so they were hardly all sweetness and light...
MRD8 and Fotini basically got it right...ie the Beatles got there first so a cultural impact tends to last if you were the FIRST or a pioneer.
also,the Beatles quit while they were youthful and therefore still perceived by the ageist rock'n'roll society as being "cool" - by being forever young and trapped in a 60's time capsule (a decade which is universally regarded as the greatest in the history of rock n roll) their reuptation will remain undiminished. Bands dont tend to stay together and grow old either (its also seen as a bit strange for middle aged men to be part of a 'gang'),whereas its easier and more acceptable for solo artists to mature.
Its a pretty absurd and ageist way that society views rock'n'roll because the concept of musicians still going when theyre past 35 or 40 is hardly a new thing. Unfortunately a lot of the media is still stuck in a 60's time warp when it comes to acknowledging and respecting older musicians - which is a bit strange as practically all the top selling acts and top grossing artists in the world tend to be OVER 40. Its also a pretty strange reversely racist and sexist mentality too,in that so many people find it outrageous that Mick Jagger can prance around a stage when he's pushing 60 yet if, for example, two performers with similar stage acts like Tina Turner or James Brown can do it in their 60's,everyone says how fuckin' great it is they're still able to do it.
[Edited by Gazza] |
|
|
| Gazza |
>Plus, they actually hit the road to play for fans, unlike the Beatles. Am I wrong about this?
well its a different era. The Beatles stopped touring in 1966 for several reasons, one of which was the fact that no-one in the audience stopped screaming long enough to listen to them. The Stones didnt tour much either in the late 60s but they also had the same problem prior to 1969 which was the first tour where fans actually LISTENED to them.
as for playing for fans - maybe the Stones have dented their cultural impact as theyve got older by targeting an older and more affluent "Vegas" style audience as their ticket prices arent really gonna attract younger fans so much. |
|
|
| sirmoonie |
The Stones are the only band capable of having a C10. |
|
|
| Boomhauer |
quote:
Gazza wrote:
>Plus, they actually hit the road to play for fans, unlike the Beatles. Am I wrong about this?
well its a different era. The Beatles stopped touring in 1966 for several reasons, one of which was the fact that no-one in the audience stopped screaming long enough to listen to them. The Stones didnt tour much either in the late 60s but they also had the same problem prior to 1969 which was the first tour where fans actually LISTENED to them.
as for playing for fans - maybe the Stones have dented their cultural impact as theyve got older by targeting an older and more affluent "Vegas" style audience as their ticket prices arent really gonna attract younger fans so much.
Yeah, you got that right about the "Vegas" style audience.
Anyway, I want to ask this question. Didn't Lennon basically call the Stones fools because they were still together? I think there was a quote from the late seventies and Lennon was ripping Mick a new one. Something about the "little leader"? |
|
|
| MRD8 |
The Beatles really couldn't go out and tour in '66 or so but if they had come back in '69 when Paul wanted them to and after most of the screaming and pandamonium would've gone away and people could hear their music live again...but they were already to far gone to come back. Another big advantage the Beatles had musically was George Martin...he was a genius in the studio who helped arrange their songs and recommend horns and stuff to flesh out their sound...the Stones were stuck with Andrew who knew absolutely nothing about the recording process! |
|
|
| Madafaka |
Beatles? What is that? A VW? Oh no, that's Beetle. I don't know what are you talking about.
But, if we talk about the gratest band of rock & roll in the world, we can talk about The Rolling Stones!
Follow Voodoo's line:
Beatles: Let It Be.
Stones: Let It Bleed.
Nothing more to say! |
|
|
| Stonesthrow |
SDH-- Did you intend a double meaning with the Imagine there's no Revolver line, or was it coincidence?
|
|
|
| macawber |
its because the average person has no idea what good rock music is.the beatles are a horribly overrated group,they have a handful of good rockers and the rest of it is either pop or dated psychedelic garbage.the bands that came from london,the stones,yardbirds etc would have made it anyway.they were influenced by american blues and rock acts that toured england in the late fifties,chuck berry,little richard,muddy waters and so forth.they owe the bug four nothing. |
|
|
| MRD8 |
Those American R&B and blues acts that you name were big in England but they were nothing in the U.S. I know if galls a lot of Stones fans to admit that they owe the Beatles anything but the fact is that their squeeky clean image and enormous popularity in England are what brought them to the attention of Ed Sullivan, he always watched the music scene in England and was quick to bring their biggest stars over here...not all of them had the success here that the Beatles had obviously! |
|
|
| steel driving hammer |
quote:
Stonesthrow wrote:
SDH-- Did you intend a double meaning with the Imagine there's no Revolver line, or was it coincidence?
I actually have no idea... |
|
|
| Maxlugar |
BEGIN TRANSMISSION:
Beatles suck!
END TRANSMISSION.
|
|
|
| corgi37 |
Mmm, another Beatles Vs Stones post. ARRRRGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!! |
|
|
| Ctiger2 |
Anyone check out [email protected]? They have channels dedicated to the Stones & Elvis. Nothing but Stones and Elvis 24/7. No Beatles though.....Hmmm? |
CHAT ROOM aka THE FUN HOUSE] [
RESTROOMS]