there are traces of ska in "All I've Got to Do"

and avant-garde in "Revolution 9"

half of Yellow Submarine can be considered "classical"

not pioneered, but they nearly explored every genre

The stones pasted the test of time? How does that work? :laughing:

I thought this thread was supposed to be about both bands early career.

I suspect it's a ploy by Beatles fans to try and divert the discussion to be about their later albums because they know the truth is the Stones early material is so much better than the Beatles early material, because even they themselves run down that era of the Beatles music while a lot of Stones fans enjoy the bands early R&B / Blues covers.

What genres would you say they took to a whole new level?

I didn't do a good job of communicating my point. It's very difficult for a band to weather the storm of fame and fortune in the world of popular music. Although it took its toll on the stones, these guys were able to do it for 50 years. To be able to do that and remain popular is remarkable.

I wasnt saying anything about your point. I was just making a joke because you said "pasted" instead of "passed".

"pasted" as in "copied and pasted" :laughing:

Its called marketing and good management.

They made quite a huge name for themselves in their early days so it's a little more than marketing and good management.

The Beatles remain extremely popular and they've been inactive for over 40 years. Is it because of marketing? Sure, in a way. But there has to be a demand for their stuff in order for the marketing to be so successful. You can get popular on good marketing and management alone, but it takes more than that to be on a level such as the Beatles, and to remain on such a high level for over 40 years is pretty remarkable. Take the best marketed pop star today and lets see how popular they are In 40 years. There's a chance they might remain popular but it's doubtful, and almost certain they won't reach the Beatles level of success.

My comment was aimed at the longevity of the Stones and not how they or the Beatles made their reputations in the 1960s.

This question has been debated more than the question of "does God really exist?" It's been discussed at every game of poker at every bar accross the country. It's been discussed on MB countless of times. And yet we are presented w/ the option of disecting Stones/Beatles singles. This has to be the most inaacurate way of depicting a band. You're basing it off of the 2 respective bands popularity instead of there body of work. Despite the list of singles you have provided for each band i have to go with the Stones. The Beatles in my honest opinion managed to perfect the idea of pop melodies while the Stones wore there influences on there sleaves. The result was The Beatles breaking up in the most melodramatic way possible by playing on top of a building and The Stones making the music they wanted up to present day. Not only that, but The Beatles never even had the gaul to put there differences aside and reunite close to 20 years. The Stones have gained my respect in that aspect as a more relavent and even more timeless band.