Beatles/Rolling Stones...Early Years...
 

As far as early chart toppers go, who had the better singles?

I Want To Hold Your Hand
vs.
I Wanna Be Your Man

Can`t Buy Me Love
vs.
Not Fade Away

A Hard Day`s Night
vs.
It`s All Over Now

I Feel Fine
vs.
Time Is On My Side

Ticket To Ride
vs.
The Last Time

Help!
vs.
Satisfaction

Yesterday
vs.
Get Off Of My Cloud

We Can Work It Out/Day Tripper
vs.
19th Nervous Breakdown

Paperback Writer
vs.
Paint It Black

Yellow Submarine/Eleanor Rigby
vs.
Mothers Little Helper/Lady Jane

Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever
vs.
Let`s Spend The Night Together/Ruby Tuesday

Hello Goodbye/I Am The Walrus
vs.
We Love You/Dandelion

Hey Jude
vs.
Jumpin` Jack Flash

Get Back
vs.
Sympathy For The Devil

Something
vs.
Honky Tonk Woman

Let It Be
vs.
Brown Sugar

The Rolling Stones
/thread

Early Beatles albums were completely ****e.

I'm not really sure I'd describe this list as completely "early years", but nevertheless my vote goes with the Stones based on these selections.

Beatles! where is the poll?

how do i add the poll? i'm new to this..

You don't, you just keep on typing the Beatles on every post.

The Beatles absolutely. I like the Rolling Stones, but they just got lucky at the right time, otherwise we'd never have heard of them. The Beatles were blessed with wonderful songwriting and magical chemistry that changed the planet forever.

The planet was changed forever? I think that's overstating it a bit. We aren't talking about Wyld Stallyns here. :laughing:

I'm gonna say The Beatles. I never really could get into The Rolling Stones very much, even if they had better material in the long run.

My vote may change through time and more exposure to The Rolling Stones.

early Beatles by a long shot
early Stones were mostly covers

however, by the late 60s, The Stones had beat The Beatles

The Beatles and the Stones
put the "V" in Vietnam

Have you been drinking again?

nope

i don't think anything beats "Beggars' Banquet" or "Let it Bleed"

Virtually all pop bands in the early 60s recorded loads of covers for their albums. Albums were just seen then as a way to make more money off the singles that had already been released, and filling them with covers was the quickest way to ship them out. The concept of an album being one body of work in pop music didn't become commonplace until around 66/67.

Stones - best band of all time

You really need to listen to some more music.

You know nothing about what I listen to, i'm a fan of most music, especially the early stuff.

The Beatles were a short lived phenomenon, great recording musicians. The Stones pasted the test of time, they did it all. Songs like "Paint it Black" will be with us forever.

Yeah. 40+ years after they broke up and they're still relevant and influential as any band ever was/is/will be. Talk about a shooting star.
--------------------------

I disagree about passing the test of time needing to be an indicator of greatness. You can have a short lived band/artist and/or a small but consistently great discography and still be considered great.

Take Beastie Boys. They released 7 very good, sometimes great, albums in roughly 30 years. I think they'll be with us forever (which was a true statement even before MCA died today)

Or someone like The Jimi Hendrix Experience. Yes, Jimi had a solo career with lots of great material, but the band released 3 stellar albums in less than 2 years. Last I checked, he's still revered and influential to many rock artists and fans.

When it comes to the Stones, there are positives to them staying active for so long. They still put on a damn good live show and they can fall back on an excellent discography with the likes of Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Beggar's Banquet. On the other hand, they are responsible for the likes of Flashpoint, Voodoo Lounge and Black and Blue.

Admittedly, I don't sit next to you in your living room or bedroom when you listen to music.

The Beatles a short lived phenomenon!!! Do you really think anybody will take you seriously with a comment like that?:rolleyes:

I think you're confusing band durability with band quality as well, if you think the Stones are the best band ever then fine, but it should be based on the quality of their music and not the durability and time the band have been together, that gives no indication of the quality of a band.

Um...

short lived? What would you consider long lived and still relevant?

:rolleyes: Where do I get in line to berate a new member some more for his ignorant remark?

i think he means bands like The Who and Yes

(sarcasm ahoy!)

The stones lasting popularity can be attributed to the music that play. Although they were influenced by what was popular at a particular time, they primarily stuck to their roots of blues and rock and roll.

Although I'm a big fan of the Beatles, its primarily because they were great musicians. At one point they themselves realized that they drifted too far from their roots into pop ballads and such prompting them to "Get Back" where they belonged.

No not hardly, I'm a big fan of the who but they don't compare to the stones. I did listen to Yes years ago, now that just history.

Rolling Stones - years active - 1962–present

"Genres: Rock, blues, blues rock, rhythm and blues, rock and roll"

"On 23 May 2010, the re-issue of Exile on Main St. stormed at No. 1 in the UK charts, almost 38 years to the week after it first occupied that position"

In comparison
The Beatles - Years active 1960–1970

"Genres: Rock, pop"

Love, a remix album of music recorded by The Beatles, released in November 2006. "Love placed at #3 in the UK Albums Chart during its first week of release. It was also successful in the United States, debuting at #4 in the Billboard 200"

I did see Cirque du Soleil's "Love" in Las Vegas, an awesome performance.

I like how the Stones play so many sub-genres of rock, and the Beatles only play rock in general. :laughing:

I'm not a fan of using record sales to show band greatness, but I'll give you home-thread advantage. If I remember correctly, the Beatles are the second highest selling artist of the 2000's (Eminem was #1). And they were the only non-active group in the top ten. What would you attribute that to?

Wha...? The Beatles played plenty of sub-genres of Rock and other genres of music. If you only went on wikipedia you would know that they are responsible for things like Heavy Metal, Grunge and Space Rock among other things.

The Beatles played:

• Avant Garde
• Beat Music
• Blues
• Country
• String Quartet
• R&B/Motown
• Rock and Roll
• Rock
• Hard Rock
• Soft Rock
• Blues Rock
• Country Rock
• Show Tunes Rock
• Psychedelic Rock
• Space Rock

I personally prefer the Stones' output over their entire careers, but the later Beatles stuff eclipses pretty much any and all Stones stuff. In my eyes (ears?) anyway.

To add to that, The Beatles were the pioneers of a large majority of the genres we listen to today. Evident from the genres you listed.

EDIT: I just read your post again and realized you had already stated that. My baaaaad.

Just because a band sticks to its roots, again is no indicator of greatness.

The Rolling Stones actually got more accolades in the rock world as better musicians, the Beatles strength was with song writing and innovation.

As for that last bit that I've highlighted, you've really got all your facts wrong there. The Beatles greatness is largely due to their mid and later period creativity where they diversified into numerous styles. They could've never gone back to the basic pop sound that they were putting out earlier on in the 1960s, as by the end of the decade rock music had evolved SO MUCH. Bands like the Beatles, the Kinks and the Byrds had been highly influential in that evolution and 1967 was probably one of the most pivotal years in the history of rock, where diversity actually buried a lot of the more basic styles.

I'm pretty sure his post was tongue-in-cheek. :laughing:

They definitely were not "the pioneers of a large majority of the genres we listen to today". Jazz? Blues? Hip hop? Country? R&B? Reggae? Ska? Salsa? Classical? Show tunes? Opera? Bluegrass? Rockabilly? Electronica? Folk? Hardcore? Extreme metal? Avant-Garde? Sorry, but I don't see it. They drew influence from a few of those genres but they weren't the pioneers of them.

Maybe pioneering wasn't the right phrasing, but The Beatles were responsible for taking genres to a whole new level.

There's a reason Sgt Pepper is one of the greatest albums of all time. They continued to bring their sound to new lengths, and that album alone was evidence of that.

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.