Even if you aren't a fan, I don't see how you can refute the idea that the Beatles are more timeless. They are without a doubt in my mind. There aren't any stones songs that continue to echo like "all you need is love" and "let it be".

What do you mean by "timeless"? Those are good songs but they are very much a product of their era. If you mean simply that they continue to be enjoyable several decades after they were written, I agree. But the same could be said of a lot of Stones songs too.

Why are you babbling a load of rubbish about Let It Be when it clearly says this is about both bands early material?

Because someone said something about The Stones being more timeless.

And Jans, all I'm saying is those songs are kind of like anthems. "All you need is love" and "let it be" have become very popular proverbs, nearly everyone would make the connection with The Beatles if they heard someone say those phrases. They've seeped into peoples minds along with some of the most famous proverbs such as "you can't have your cake and eat it too". The one stones song I can think of that has had that effect is "you can't always get what you want".

The quote I posted (The Beatles - Years active 1960–1970 "Genres: Rock, pop") is from wikipedia. Personally I always considered the Beatles to be a Pop Band, especially their early stuff. To get a better understanding of what you are saying, last night I went back to wiki and did some reading on the subject and now understand your point.

"Author Dominic Pedler describes the way they crossed genres: "One of [their] greatest ... achievements was the songwriting juggling act they managed for most of their career. Far from moving sequentially from one genre to another (as is sometimes conveniently suggested) the group maintained in parallel their mastery of the traditional, catchy chart hit while simultaneously forging rock and dabbling with a wide range of peripheral influences from Country to vaudeville."

Getting back to the original idea of the topic...

Here's what I think consider "Early" for both bands, as I think that "Paint It Black" and "Paperback Writer" are really the start of the time when they were both on top of their game together.

As I love the singles of both bands, it's a tough call. At the end of the day, however, I have to say The Stones had the edge.

Take a trip back in time...
The Beatles had some classic Pop that changed the game, but The Stones had the songs that inspired those who wanted their music a little more on the wild side. 62-Early 66 Beatles were like taking a walk in the College building with one of the cool people who were very open minded and positive about the potential for change in society. Early Stones were like walking down a city street thinking you had the cool and suss to make the scene, or at least knowing you had the ambition to, with the street wise friend who also knew the score and all of the hip places to go.

As I said, all classic sides, but it's down to Keith and Brian for the win.

I wonder what songs they had in mind when they said "Vaudeville" maybe it was "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill." "You Mother Should Know" was suppose to be like the old radio songs they grew up listening to but I don't know the genre of that song; '39 by Queen was sort of the same but Brian May simulated the instruments with his guitar.

I consider The Beatles a Rock band that made it into the Pop charts and not a Pop band that played Rock music. What I gather they considered themselves the first "Rock band" where the others before them were "Rock and Roll" artist like Elvis and Buddy Holly & the Crickets. There were British bands before The Beatles (e.g. Brian Poole & the Tremeloes or Cliff Richard & The Shadows) but they went by "person and the band name." They claim to be the first band that had only a band name, played their own instruments, and wrote their own songs - well eventually went on to write their own songs.

they were probably the first "Boy band" as well

lots of teenybopper girl fans

I know that this post is possibly filled with some gaps, but follow me on this...

Although I have read that type of statement before, I still slightly debate on that. The Beatles were mainly a great self-contained Pop/Rock band with a large following of Pop fans who found a group of presentable musicians who happened to have a pretty cool and then-groundbreaking style, both image-wise and musical. Pop based "Boy Bands" to me are more connected to a lot of the vocal groups and bands that usually (not always) relied on outside writers and used the lighter-styled trends of the day that attracted a mainly teenybopper following in their day, so in a 60's context that includes The Walker Brothers (One of the few GREATS that had the luck to have powerful songs and in their history a developing writer in Scott) to maybe say The Dave Clark Five, who were also self-contained but with a style that was certainly lightweight in my opinion, and Herman's Hermits, although they only had one 16-Magazine style face in my opinion (Peter Noone). I can also call The Bee Gees another classic example of a Boy Band who had the rare example of being self-contained but also having the distinction of creating some very high quality work that was focused mainly on Pop with only a few examples of trying some more edgy styles.

But The Beatles? Not a Boy Band.

They also were a step for many kids to try and develop their skills as musicians. Outsider kids of the era certainly had a lot of influence from The Beatles, and while it was largely overtaken by bands like the Stones and The Who later on, The Beatles' mix of skill, style, and image had a strong effect for people to choose being musician as a career choice that Boy Bands usually never can (with one of the exceptions being the Gibbs who certainly had to have influenced many through both hit making ability and longevity).

To me, Beatlemania was one of the few era in Rock where the teenyboppers actually had focused on a great band instead of a charismatic singer with a great voice in the best of cases or a hype that had the luck to be with the right style at the right time in the worst examples.

I agree. Maybe in the sense that there weren't any women in the band.

Somewhat but not totally... I can see that Brian Epstein pushed them into the direction to have a certain look to widen their fan base which so happen to be appealing to young teen girls. And when The Beatles arrived on the scene they were the biggest craze for teeny boppers though the band out grew that pretty fast (I thought). But they weren't the first to appeal to teeny boppers that phenomenon was around before and each generation had it's own teen idol. Before The Beatles it was the Bobby era (Bobby Vee, Bobby Vinton) and before that it was Elvis girls were screaming at and before him it was Frank Sinatra and Bing Cosby - when they were young.

Boy Bands in reference to The Beatles is an anachronism, boy bands started in the late 70's early 80's long after the Beatles and are based on R&B vocal groups more than Rock Bands. Another difference is that The Beatles were a band before they were discover, and Boy Bands are corporate construct pieced together by a producer etc.

Very true. Nicely explained.

Definetly the beatles!!


I just got a record made in 1966 called "THE BEST OF THE BEATLES" and it has songs from thier pre-beatles era and they are all gorgeous!!!!!

The Querryman,etc.....

Every song on this album is 1000% better than anything they ever did as the beatles and I love just about everything they did :)

Who doesn't? First album is just about everything I want from early rock n roll.