This was inspired by the “Stones” thread. I’ve gotta wonder, could the stones really kick the beatles’ ass? I mean the Beatles were pretty damn awesome…so what do the teeming millions think?
fisticuffs? of course the stones would win. mick would bite.
any other contest would be ridiculous. apples and oranges.
I prefer the Beatles myself, but I think comparing the two is like apples and oranges. They’re too dissimilar, like when people compare the Beatles and Elvis. Whole 'nother species almost. I think a more accurate comparison is Rolling Stones vs. the Who. Don’t know why though. Hmmm.
(posted while drinking, like I need to point that out!)
Kick their ass physically or musically?
Physically-yes. Lennon was the “bad” boy of Liverpool, and was constantly fighting until he became a “star”–he rarely lost a fight.
Musically-yes. To quote another member, the Stones have been turning out blues based rock and roll for decades. Impressive, true. However, the Beatles were constantly progressing.
They started with “Love Me Do” Simple song, with simple lyrics, but catchy.
Their entire “Please Please Me” album was very good, but full of short, catchy tunes. While their musical genius was evident, it was not overtly obvious.
By the time “A Hard Day’s Night” came, one year later, their writing style changed significantly, and their songs were more mature marking their first attempt at original “love songs” with “And I Love Her” and “If I Fell”. Also, “A Hard Day’s Night”, “You Can’t Do That” and various other songs on the album were hailed as the epitome of rock and roll (Remember, this was 1964)
One year later they released “Help!” album. It contained instant rock classics such as “Help!” and “Ticket To Ride”, again, even more advanced than “AHDN” However, it also marked a maturity in another way. That was the album that contained “Yesterday”. All of a sudden, the Beatles were hailed as REAL musicians for the first time. “Help!” was the a good blend of rock and ‘real’ music. But The Beatles had only just begun.
Later in 65 they released “Rubber Soul”. This album was so huge and momentous in so many ways, I cannot even list them. They experimented with different types of musical styles, instruments, and songs. “Norweigon Wood (This Bird Has Flown)” was ground breaking.
I could go on like this, for “Revolver”, “Sgt. Peppers” “Beatles (AKA The White Album)” “Let It Be” and “Abbey Road” but I think you can get the general gist for what’s already been said. Each album marked another stage of progression and maturity. They also had the good grace to bow out while they were at their prime, leaving behind only good memories.
I vote for the Who.
In the other argument, I gotta go for the Beatles.
Rolling Stone magazine’s website has little competitions like this (once a week, I think). Usually comtemporary vs. classic. Pretty neat to go through.
I agree with Pepperlandgirl, with the addition that the Beatles performed more styles of music than the Stones ever did, from hard rock, to ballads, to Broadway show tunes (well, one at least), British music hall, soft rock, Indian influenced, country influence, to wildly experimental. The Beatles were also better lyrically (John Lennon especially) and wrote about many more subjects than the Stones (whose songs usually revolved solely around sex and relationships).
The Beatles were so influential on popular music that it’s hard to see it nowadays. They also pioneered music video.
I’d take the Who over the Stones mostly because Peter Townsend’s greater intelligence and ambition.
Beatles. For all the reasons everyone else said. Basically, if you listen to ten Stone’s albums, sure there is some progression. But the music is pretty much the same thing every time. Exceptions like Wild Horses are there, but that is unusual.
The Beatles completely innovated rock music. Music videos? The Beatles. 4-6 minutes songs? The Beatles. Layering/“wall of sound” effect? The Beatles. Mix of love songs and and rock on each album? The Beatles. Complete originality in musical styles/expirimentation? The Beatles. Finally, drug-inspired rock? The Beatles. No question.
I really love both, but I gotta kick for my Beatles.
Hijack: Do ya think if I sent in a FANatic for Paul McC., I would get to meet him?
At first glance, I would say no. But then, I remember that Paul is VERY accessible to his fans, and has always been. He knows that he would be nothing without his fan base. So I say, go for it. Except if you get to meet my hero, and I don’t, I’ll be devastated. =(
Mick Jagger is the coolest lead singer ever.
John Lennon got a little too full of himself for my taste.
The Beatles, with notable exceptions, had a lighter, poppier feel to their music.
From the late '60s to the early '70s, the Stones were the baddest. Their music was darker, edgier, a little more dangerous. All good things when you’re talking about rock and roll.
Mick’s woman was Marianne Faithful, one of the most beautiful creatures of the '60s.
John’s was Yoko Ono.
Nuff said.
Not a good arguement to bring up in this thread, since the Beatles DIDN’T HAVE A LEAD SINGER! John was just as important as Paul, Paul was just as important as John, and nobody can forget George.
Maybe at some point he was, but that never affected his music.
That’s what? 3 years? Woohoo! The Stones have three years! Hey, that’s the same shelf life as The Backstreet Boys! Besides, you wanna bring up darker edgier etc etc, then The Doors win hand down. Jagger never had the intensity of Jim Morrison (but that’s a completely different debate).
You have only seen Yoko Ono in her long haired white dress phase. What you may not know is when she wasn’t doing “bed in” she was very stunning. She has a great figure, even to this day. Plus Yoko is very very intelligent. I would dare say that Yoko has more positive qualities than Marianne Faithful ever did.
Go Pepper! Go Pepper!
::does the cabbage patch::
But her singing kills lab rats in seconds!
Yes, I know. What does this have to do with the Beatles-Stones debate? Nothing. vv is right. It’s apples and oranges.
Still, they are the two big British invasion bands that sort of became icons.
Milossarian, I know it’s comparing apples and oranges. But it’s so much fun!
Seriously though, I love the Stones, and it’s hard to compare them to The Beatles, when they weren’t The Beatles. But the Beatles are still the best. =)
Thanks Milo…great sig BTW
Liverpool vs. London, no contest !
I don’t think you can compare them, either. My fist thought was also “apples and oranges”. IMHO, The Stones were probably the archetypal ‘rock and roll’ band. They’ve always pretty much lived within the confines of conventional rock music. Yep, they had great bluesy roots and, at their best, combined that with real edge. But by the mid 60’s The Beatles were just out there. It’s difficult for me to grasp just how far they took contemporary music in such a short time span.
Hell of a long way from ‘Rock around the Clock’ to ‘A Day in the Life’ – not sure if the distance to ‘Sympathy for the Devil’ and/or ‘Gimme Shelter’ is as great.
Also, I wonder if the Stones naturally dovetail into Led Zep whereas The Beatles can lead any bloody place you want.
For rock, The Stones. For influence, sheer quality and breadth of composition and for innovation, Liverpool
The Beatles were full of crap. “Love, love, love…” Yeah, right. Gosh, Paul and John sure showed a lot of love for each other in those last few years, didn’t they? Face it. They talked the talk, but they didn’t walk the walk.
John was an unabashed communist in later years, yet I didn’t see him giving his money away. At best he was naive, at worst, he was a hypocrite. But let’s talk about the music:
Paul wrote pop songs. With a couple of exceptions, you can’t even call what he did “rock”.
Pauls lyrics were trite and treacly. John was by far the better lyricist. Jagger is a better lyricist than either. The best of the Beatles lyrics were weak imitations of their lyrical idol, Bob Dylan.
Let’s talk musicianship. Ringo as a drummer? Don’t make me laugh! George Harrison was the only great instrumentalist in the group. His talent, I will grant you. The Stones, on the other hand, are responsible for approximately half of the great guitar riffs in the history of rock and roll. Keith Richards is a guitar genius.
The Stones were true to rock and roll’s history as an edgy, blues-based, slightly dangerous, parent-scaring genre. The Beatles, on the other hand, were writing orchestral love songs. :rolleyes: You can call that “growth” if you want to. I call it losing sight of what rock and roll is all about.
As for the Beatles’ vaunted studio innovations, I credit their producer George Martin with most of that. He has been gracious enough not to take all the credit he deserves. The proof? The post-Beatles work of John, Paul, George and Ringo is glaringly inferior, production-wise (and content-wise, for that matter) to their output while Martin was producing them.
Let’s talk live performances. Oh wait, that’s right, the Beatles quit performing live. Way to stay in touch with your fans, guys. The Stones, meanwhile, are one of the greatest (if not the greatest), live bands in the history of rock and roll.
The Stones have made great rock and roll for decades. The Beatles got into a pouting match and called it quits after just a few years.
The Beatles made some wonderful music, don’t get me wrong. But the greatest band ever? Don’t buy that hype.
Ummmmmmm, O.K.
Led Zepplin.
Period. Over. Done.
Sheesh, it’s like - Duh.
Sure, they were great but Jimmy Paiges voice was worse than Yoko’s!! Plus, they never knew how to end a song.
for the definitive lesson on song ending, sign up for A Day In The Life, 101
and yes, the Beatles would win against the Stones…
for every Sympathy for the Devil, the Beatles had Tomorrow Never Knows
Nacho4Sara wrote:
Well…
[ul]
[li]“wall of sound”- Originated by Phil Spector, early 60’s. (Before the Beatles used it.)[/li][li]Mix of love songs and rock on albums- Standing tradition. See Elvis, Buddy Holly, any number of others before the Beatles.[/li][li]drug-inspired rock- The Beatles’ lyrical idol Bob Dylan did it first, and the Beatles hopped on the train.(And that’s not counting the numerous earlier R&B songs with veiled references to drugs.)[/li][li]Originality in musical styles- Well, everybody talks about the Beatles’ use of orchestral arrangements in their music as if that were some huge breakthrough, but Buddy Holly had done that years before. People talk about the fact that the Beatles were involved in producing their own music. Again, Buddy Holly was way ahead of ‘em. The Beatles get credit for the first use of backmasking, I believe. :rolleyes:[/li][li]4-6 minute songs- I demur. Can’t think of any earlier examples, but I don’t see this as an earth-shattering innovation.[/li][li]music videos- The Beatles do get some props for “Strawberry Fields.” Don’t know who’s idea that was, though. It might have come from some anonymous record company executive rather than the Beatles themselves, in which case, the Beatles shouldn’t get credit for it. Also, film clips had been used to promote music for a long time. There were even old juke boxes which played clips of musicians performing back in the 50’s. (Can’t remember what those were called.) The Beatles’ putative contribution was the idea of doing a film clip where they weren’t simply standing around lip-synching the song.[/li][/ul]
(Man, I love provoking Beatles fans. 
All in good fun, y’all.)
OH damn. I got stuff to do but I can’t let this go:
Ummm, they were talking about loving other girls, not each other. With the exception of “All You Need Is Love” to which I believe you were referring. Well, if you listen to the lyrics, it is also about a woman. And their comments and efforts at peace (i.e. John’s war protest) have nothing to do with the fact that their musical styles went in different directions (John wanted to expiriment and Paul wanted to get back to his roots).
Nothing to do with their music, as you said. And he actually did contribute a sizable portion of his income to charity, as detailed in a book (forgot the name) by his former personal assistant. Yoko bought a cow, sold it for $10,000, and donated the money to charity.
I guess it depends on your taste. Personally,
“She walks in colors everywhere. She combs her hair. She’s a rainbow”
is FAR inferior to:
“In the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make”
OR:
“Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see. It’s getting hard to be someone but it all works out, it doesn’t matter much to me.”
They mimicked Dylan in their lyric style, true. But Jagger didn’t? He named his freaking band after a Dylan song, which leads me to assume Dylan was their idol, or at least an influence. And yet, the Beatles lyrics come closer to Dylan (as evidenced above) than Jagger. IMHO, you can’t compare Dylan to either.
Yes, Paul was pop-influenced. But have you heard Revolution? Or Don’t Let Me Down? He the best bassist of his time - his bass line moved. He was a superior guitar player without a doubt.
This leads me to think you don’t actually listen to the Beatles. Have you heard ANY of their rock songs? Like Revolution, A Hard Day’s Night, I Feel Fine, Help, Come Together, Back In The USSR, Get Back. Harrison was talented, but so were Paul and John. Seriously, listen to “The End”. The guitar solo part is Paul, George and John doing three solos each, revolving in that order. Listen to Paul’s guitar, then George’s shimmering Clapton-esque Blues solo, then John when he slams it home.
Then comes Ringo’s only drum solo. Breathtaking. And “Rain” is clearly indicative of Ringo’s drum skills.
Anyone who has heard “I Feel Fine” or “A Hard Day’s Night” will argue that the Beatles certainly contribute to some of the greatest guitar riffs.
The Beatles’s origins were in rock. All of their early stuff up till A Hard Day’s Night was pure rock, even the love songs. From Rubber Soul on, thier rock evolved but was still rock. Just because they made beautiful love songs, and their rock become more complex, does not mean they were not pure rock.
George Martin said in his book, “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” that the Beatles came up with their innovations, Martin just made them happen. Every Beatles landmark (i.e. SFF’s changing tempo, the reverb on I Feel Fine, A Day In The Life’s orchestra, came from the Beatles.
I disagree with the statement that they suck alone. Paul is incredible. BUT all of them have acknowledged (in interviews and quotes I can find later if you want) that they were better together than apart. When they worked together, something clicked (I am paraphrasing a quote from “A Day In The Life”) and they were much more talented as a group than as solo artists. I am not aware of whether the Stones seperately realeased solo albums, but if they did, I bet Paul or George outsold them. And if they didn’t, then you can’t argue with that point because there is no proof that the same fate would not happen to the Stones.
I agree that Stones are awesome live, but I have never seen the Beatles. So what if they stopped touring? Their music still rocks, and is timeless today as it was in 1965.
No, that’s not what happened. They broke up. No pouting match. Yoko was a small part of what happened, not the reason why.
At least they knew how to go out in style.
It’s not hype.
[quote]
“wall of sound”- Originated by Phil Spector, early 60’s. (Before the Beatles used it.)[.quote]
Well, the Beatles popularized it.
I love debating with people who are too ignorant to know what they are talking about.