Note: I’m not asking whether you prefer the Beatles or the Rolling Stones. This isn’t Great Debates.
“Who’s better: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?” is one of those classic, endlessly unsettled pop culture questions.
As a classic, of course, it’s also kind of dated and boring. I mean, does anyone really think the Stones are an “edgier” choice than the Beatles anymore? In 1970, yes. In 2007, post-gangster rap and G.G. Allin, not so much.
Beatles vs. Stones was kind of charming and fun to debate 20 years ago. Now? There’s gotta be a better substitute. I can’t believe the Baby Boomers’ grandkids focus on debating the merits of their grandparents’ seminal bands. (Though I guess I do have an opinion in the classic Crosby vs. Sinatra debate.)
So what’s the contemporary equivalent, dividing music fans into ostensibly contrasting sensibilities? R.E.M. vs. U2 is too old (and the differences aren’t as polarizing). Britney vs. Christina? Too shallow. So what’s the debate?
No, none of those are good ones. Shit, this is hard because there are SO MANY different kinds of popular music now, and there weren’t back in the times when the Beatles and Stones first emerged. So hell if I know a good answer to this one.
OK, thats a bit dated, but, really, has there been any bands to come out since then that are as important? Not that I think Nirvana is important but still…
U2 is kind of like the Stones in that they have kept going and going, while Nirvana is kind of like the Beatles, burdened by their success. Unfortunately they are not really contemporaries.
Really I think the biggest current division in music is indie vs. mainstream.
People who are “indie” fans (not just indie rock but indie in general meaning outside of what’s played on MTV and on the radio) might listen to everything from underground hip-hop, obscure electronica, local folk or alt-country artists, traditional “indie rock” like New Pornographers, to classic alternative rock like Smashing Pumpkins and Alice and Chains and 80s music like Talking Heads. The individual genres are next to meaningless.
And then there are the people who listen to DMB, Coldplay, mainstream rap and R&B, plus possibly indie bands that made it big such as White Stripes or Modest Mouse or Franz Ferdinand.
Maybe this is the most current incarnation of the Beatles vs. Stones question?
Argent Towers, I think that’s as good a theory as any. The fact that the OP even had to ask, means that the idea of an eternal debate between two contemporary bands, where everyone who cares passionately prefers one to the other, is irrelevant these days.
I agree that there’s no easily framed choice in today’s musical climate. The closest and most recent one, band-wise, would probably be Nirvana vs. Pearl Jam in the nineties - like the Beatles vs. the Stones, two sides of the same coin working toward goals that were often as similar (bucking corporate control of rock) as they were disparate (making artful and uncommercial records vs. resurrecting the worst aspects of eighties hair metal and arena rock).
When I was in junior high, it was Four Seasons vs Beach Boys. So this kind of debate predated the Beatles.
Now? Steaming pile of poo vs maggot infested donkey balls? And get off my lawn!
Seriously, I doubt any groups today are as dominant as the Beatles and Stones were, so the issue doesn’t come up. No one debated Dave Clark Five vs the Who after all.
Has there ever been another pair of bands that have so polarized fanbases as the Beatles and the Stones? I don’t think the problem is coming up with a contemporary pairing, but that there have been so very few match-ups of this scale. I mean, besides Debbie Gibson vs Tiffany, of course.
