Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I wasn't saying "The Stones weren't influenced by The Beatles," if you're trying to make out that was what I was saying then that would be an Aunt Sally. I was trying to say was that The Beatles were also influenced by The Rolling Stones. What I should had said was 'And it's the other way around [too] where The Beatels were influence by The Rolling Stones especially the album 12X5.'


You right their debut album was a little more than just Blues album, but I wasn't only going by what songs they put on their first album but what they were interested in then and what brought them together and what they played in clubs, which was R&B and Blues. R&B has a slightly different meaning in the UK. I am more use to refering to artist who are African-American artist as R&B. So I called the Stones a Blues band. The early Rolling Stones even the band Blues Incorperated where some of the member come from were considered a R&B band in the UK. The reason for saying The Rolling Stones started off as Blues (and R&B) outfit was basically point that the band sole existence wasn't due to The Beatles. The had their own reasons (seperate from The Beatles) for starting up a band. You can mentioned they were discovered because after The Beatles were signed they were looking for the next big thing. It might be true for other bands younger than The Beatles, but the Stones and The Beatles were contemparies - imo pretty much equal all things considered.

Besides all of that, is it so hard to fathom that The Beatles are not as all powerful as they are made out to be, that they weren't the impetus for every single band forming in the 60s and then-after?




I don't buy that. I mean both The Bealtles and the Stones then were new bands (then) doing covers song, and I know by today standard bands that only do their own material are a dime a dozen, but back then it was exceptable to do cover songs. It was a way for them to earn thier flight wings, until they could write their own material. So just because The Beatles came first and then helped them out I wouldn't spin it that it was the main reason the Stones would go on to write their own songs. The whole point to Rock and Roll was to write your own songs, right? I mean yeah The Beatles helped them but they were eventual go own to right their own material, because that was the reason for Rock n Roll.



In a way that shows you how The Beatles and The Stones comes from two different worlds. Mick Jagger (and even Elvis) took thier cue from R&B performers. I don't know how fimiliar you are with them but as the years went by Mick's dancing progressed and he did more and more. I don't know when the interveiw took place so I don't know what kind of thing Mick was doing. But it was always about showmanship, Mick the frontman and their are times he's not singing, so he was only “mach schau” so John understand that.




I laughed all through that part, it was if The Rolling Stones were "trolling" John Lennon and The Beatles.



To me it's more than opinions, I feel what I was trying to do is to show more respect and admiration for other artist other than The Beatles - I think that should be noted. Our understanding of the history of Rock n Roll is just different, that's all.

Originally Posted by Rjinnx

Beatles debates are like debating religion. Round and round it goes.

Originally Posted by Conan

*sees ancient thread bumped again.*

Originally Posted by cikitalcek

Beatles is religion...

Originally Posted by Conan

*sees ancient thread bumped again.*

Originally Posted by Necromancer

Who would you pick as the best band musically, not the most popular? The Beatles, or The Beach Boys,

Originally Posted by Wqs

the Beatles!