jr.

Geez. Maybe I should have picked a different song and artist. The last thing I wanted to start was the 10,000th Green Day argument.


About the Beatles, though, they came along at exactly the right time. The 50's sound was on its last leg, and the Beatles were the shot in the arm the music scene needed. They captured lightning in a bottle, because music fans from the 50s were in their 20s by then and the next generation was left with the residual effect of Ricky Nelson, The Penguins, The Platters, etc, etc.

The early 60's was a transitional period for rock and roll, even at its early age. After the flash point of Elvis, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, and the like, rock and roll wasn't ten years old, and already the flame was starting to flicker. The initial craze had settled, and it was pretty much par for course, a sort of subdued, steady as she goes type vibe in music back then. No real daredevils or what have you. It was as though all the artists from that time had taken the recipe for rock and roll, and just stirred it, without adding anything new.

When the Beatles came along, they were the 60's equivalent of Elvis. Where Elvis had long sideburns, they had mop tops. They had the Italian boots and the tight cut pantlegs. The 'new' wild.

Kids ate it up, for a few reasons. They were bored with music, and, on top of everything else, their parents hated it. LOL. That is the one thing that has not changed in 50 years of Rock and Roll. If my parents hate it, it must be good.

My own personal opinion is, I thought the Stones were, if not better, more interesting. While the Beatles sang "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", the Stones sang "I Wanna Be Your Man". The counter-culture Beatles.

Anyway, my two cents.

__________________
Be strong then, and enter into your own body;
there you have a solid place for your feet. ~ Kabir

CityLightsLikeRain

Aww. Consider them my flaw, okay? I have a soft spot for "Wake me up when September Ends".

__________________

...I think I ate your chocolate squirrel...

Muzak

That song makes want to throw burning babies off a cliff. and this is coming from a big Green Day fan.

Crowe

Thank goodness I don't listen to the radio. I only hear that song when I've got my iPod on shuffle or when I'm listening to American Idiot. I like it I guess, it isn't their best song... but it's not their worst.

__________________


My silly experimental band:

www.myspace.com/boyfromthestarsmusic

CityLightsLikeRain

lol.

Well it was just refreshing. And the video was a bit over-dramatic, but I have a friend who is going into the army and his girlfriend reacted that way, so I think of them when I hear that song.

And at least I'm not raving about Good Charlotte or All American Rejects. I would deduct myself respect points if I ever started going off in a tangent about them.

__________________

...I think I ate your chocolate squirrel...

Merkaba

I was thinking about these two bands 2 pages ago and you've prompted me to ask the next question.

What if The Rolling Stones were the more widely regarded of the two bands.

i.e What if it were the Rolling Stones who were revered the way the Beatles are today. The possible impact on todays music?

__________________

Right you lot, shut it. Strewth Fowler my son, all looks a bit pear-shaped round here or what. The govenor's talking, Saturday's game, very dodgy, very naughty, could go a little pear-shaped. If there's a rough things might be well iffy. These faces are a little bit hard, know what I mean, a little bit of oof, have some of that my son, bosh, sorted, ta ta, got me, so be clever. Good, now shut it!

Urban Hatemonger

They are for me

The Beatles were nice clean cut boys who wrote nice pop songs , at least to start with anyway .I think the Stones were more in tune with how rock bands are now.You just have to look at their image & attitude .. shaggy hair ,didn`t wear matching suits & write songs about the seedier side of life with dirty great blues riffs.You can see their influence the whole way through rock music not just musically but the attitude & the imagery.

__________________

boo boo

Then they started trying new things and became a influence on everything from prog to pop to alternative rock to metal.

Only depending on how you define "rock band", if you mean only the glam, hard rock and punk bands then yeah...I think you are just including the kind of rock you like, and not everything else.

They make better music than The Beatles because they dress better?...Is it just me or do you really let a bands pysical appearence have way too much influence on your opinion about them?

Thats certainly never been done before, how innovative.

But if you take away the imagry and fashion sense, The Beatles still had more musical influence overall...They opened the gates for many genres of music to come, after the mid 60s they began to try a handfull of different things, and didnt give a **** about the consequence's of the risks they took, they just took them...Not to mention they were the first rock band who learned how to use the recording studio to its full potential...The music industry would be a hell of a lot different without The Beatles than The Stones, both are great bands, but The Beatles are greater in my opinion.

Whoever's better is completely up to you.

__________________
http://www.progarchives.com/

Urban Hatemonger

You`ve missed the point by a mile

I was suggesting what qualities the stones had , not comparing what they did to the Beatles. I`m not suggesting the had more influence than the Beatles anybody with half a brain can see things pretty much started with them, I just think the Stones deserve some credit for what they did without 'oh the Beatles did this the Beatles did that' every 5 minutes.

__________________

boo boo

I dont think anyone here was trying to take away credit for what The Rolliing Stones did.

__________________
http://www.progarchives.com/