Music Banter - View Single Post - The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 01-16-2007, 08:07 AM   #444 (permalink)
Music Man
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
They did sell out, but unlike the Stones, they had the sense to sell out on their very first album, they were always a mainstream band, even during their experimental period.

So unlike the Stones, The Beatles never lost any credibility during the span of their career, unless you count the whole "more popular than Jesus Christ" thing.

Another thing is that The Beatles were wise enough to quit during their prime, as opposed to The Rolling Stones, who should have quit over 40 f*cking years ago.
No, the Beatles didn't sell out.

"Selling out" is something a band or musician does when, for example, they start and gain fame as a hard rock band, then turn to light pop later in their careers. They betray their roots.

The Beatles NEVER betrayed their roots. If the Beatles were "always" a mainstream pop band from start to finish as you claim, then by your own definition they NEVER sold out.

And I think most people here would disagree that the Stones should've quit over 40 years ago. Because that means many of their very best 60's recordings, BEFORE they sold out, would've never happened. I would agree with you if you had said they should've quit 30 years ago.

I'm not here to bash the Stones. I'm a huge fan of most of their 60's to mid-70's recordings. But there's no denying they sold out big time when they went disco in 1978. Just like there's no denying they never reached the same heights as the Beatles.
__________________
"Paranoid is just like an anchor. It really secures everything about the metal movement in one record. It's all there: the riffs, the vocal performance of Ozzy, the song titles, what the lyrics are about. It's just a classic defining moment."

--Rob Halford of Judas Priest
Music Man is offline