They probly wrote them like that cus that was what there trip was like
and the beatles are the best band in the world they made music what it is
and if any one disagrees i dont care cus that my opinion not yours

You ever done lsd Urban my ill informed foe?
Then you'd understand the childlike quality of the songs.
Lsd is not smack or morphine hence the difference in the lyrics Urban.
Urban your opinions are quaint but still your opinion.
The stones were more rock and the beatles were more melody.

I don't see how drug consumption has anything to do with a preference.
And not all LSD inspired songs have to be childlike.
Just ask 13th Floor Elevators & Hawkwind.

The Beatles are way overrated. The Stones any day.

the Stones came off the London blues scene, and despite being brilliant up until the early 70's they weren't doing anything new.

They even unsuccessfully tried to ape the pop innovations of Revolver and the Kinks with 1967's 'Between the Buttons', not to mention psychedelia with 'Their Satanic Majesties...'. Although I am a fan of the latter.

Don't get me wrong, they hit one of the all-time musical peak with the blues n' soul orgasm that was Exile on Main St, love them, but when you listen to the best Beatles records for the first time you are constantly surprised by each new direction they take.
And lest we forget the Stones had their first break with a Beatles cover.

since irrelevance is key in these rankings....

10 reasons why the beatles ARE better than the rolling stones

1 - john lennon is super cool

2 - so is paul & george

3 - who is prettier now? http://www.usounds.com/wp/wp-content...thrichards.jpg
http://www.facade.com/celebrity/phot..._McCartney.jpg

4 - the beatles stopped performing because they didnt need to advertise their albums (the initial reason for touring) any further and wanted to spend more time making studio albums that were revolutionary at the time .... the stones still try performing live, only to let down audiences who paid $200/ticket

5 -
beatles 1967 (drugs huh?)
http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_...SGT_PEPPER.jpg
rolling stones 1967 (what were you saying about faces on album covers?)
http://www.wetstudios.com/rental_boa...gs_flowers.jpg

6 - the beatles wrote less songs about rejection, sorrow, and all that bull**** because people actually liked them... so instead they wrote songs about love

7 - the beatles were able to release amazing music of MANY genres, while the stones rarely deviated from the same path

8 - the beatles actually know what a metaphor is.... and how to use them

9 - you an *******! (you asked for someone to insult you... thought i could lend a helping hand)

10 - what kind of tool would say he snorted his fathers ashes (to sound cool) and then have to admit he was lying (to regain popularity)....super cool!





ps i also like the stones.... just hope i helped further STUs point that none of your comments even made realistic points of arguement about which band is "better"

Ten Reasons Why the Smiths Were Better than Both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.

1. Johnny Marr is actually the coolest guitar on the planet and he's played with The The and Modest Mouse.

2. Morrissey, the actual greatest frontman of all time.

3. Morrissey didn't need some slut on his arms to look cool or prove his manliness.

4. Did either of these pussy 60s bands ever sing a song like Handsome Devil? I think not.

5. The Smiths created that whole image of random people that weren't even them and slapping the name/album name on it later used by Belle & Sebastian. The Rolling Stones best album was some silly collage and the Beatles best album looked like some lame hippie gay orgy.

6. The Smiths never released a bad album and had the most timely break up ever. Neither band can lay claim to this.

7. Even dudes wanted to rip off Morrissey's shirt AND he played with flowers in his back pocket and still seemed so masculine. The Rolling Stones are like one giant wrinkle and the Beatles didn't even like touring.

8. Mike Joyce is a cooler name than Ringo Starr or Charlie Watts.

9. 9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus, Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss, Morrissey - Seasick, Yet Still Docked. What's this? Two really awful songs and one beautiful one? What's this? Morrissey's released SEVERAL good solo albums?

10. Appearance wise...well

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/190016.jpg

&

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/190183.jpg

Vs

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/_/391684.jpg

Yeah I think I know who I'd rather go see even if Marr isn't wearing his super badass shades.

Original post pretty much sums it up perfectly in a nutshell.

re crowquill^ I don't want to get into a puerile argument here but that's really thin. Why even compare them?
The Beatles and Stones had an influence that directly resulted in movements and groups in rock music, that themselves are responsible for the existence of just about everybody, let alone the Smiths. I love the Smiths but...what? Oh and Marr was a massive Beatles fan, just like any other brilliant guitarist in history

My post wasn't that serious.

^(as long as he had his acne cream)

I lol'd.

:rolleyes: this thread demonstrates that appreciation of the Beatles is something that comes with maturity, musical maturity at least... If you still have a one-dimensional viewpoint about a band like that you just don't know alot - it's like dismissing the Smiths as 'depressing music for suicide cases'!

Fair enough if you have an aesthetic bone to pick - they're too twee or whatever (by no means were they always that either) - just read some books and listen to some albums before you make an idiot out of yourself

I think you have to realise 2 things when taking this thread in account.

First that it's over 2 years old.
Second that at the time it was made it seemed like everytime the Beatles were mentioned it was at the expense of the Stones , and everytime you mentioned something you like about the Stones you'd get Beatles fans saying 'oh but the Beatles were better blah blah blah'. and not giving the Stones credit for a single thing.
This was my way of poking fun at these people.

The Beatles are actually one of my favorite bands.

i have a fire in my belly when it comes to the Beatles, we're talking fundamentals of my existence type stuff. unfortunately I am one of 'those people', musthavethelastword!

this is good. let us never speak of this again. i'm gonna go and post something about jazz-funk now

What.

Listening to pop =/= musical maturity

re comus- it's one thing to listen to music, another to appreciate it, I'm not a musician but it adds another level to try to listen as such.
they were the first band to innovate with the popular music medium, hell what would the sixties have been like without them? would people have still been listening to Elvis and doo wop? they proved that rock n' roll could encompass a limitless variety of harmonies and sounds, they were the first to use jazz chords in pop music (do we associate the term 'pop' with anything before the hysteria of Beatlemania?) and the changes in their compositions are, compared to rock up to that point, mental.

Sure their achievements have since been surpassed, and I'm not saying innovation is exclusive property of the Beatles (look at Frank Zappa or 'Pet Sounds') - but their indelible mark on pop/rock/whatever is undeniable. It had to start somewhere, and if they hadn't done it somebody else would, just probably not the Stones (jokes).
And their influence on experimentation in the studio and the development of multi-track recording, bringing sound collage to the masses is very well documented.
Like I said just read some books and listen to some records, I've debated this enough for a lifetime!
and forgive the grammar it's about 3 in the morning where i am and this is the most pointless thing i've ever done

The original post was facetious anyway, but yeah, to others who have used the thread as a way of casting aspersions on the Beatles... clearly the bands are not comparable because they are of different genres. In fact, nobody should attack a band for being of a genre they don't like or listen to in the first place. It's like, when I hear some extreme Death Metal fans talk trash about Radiohead and say things like "get some talent", as if "talent" depends upon how raw and heavy your sound is. In a nutshell, if somebody doesn't even like the genre that a particular band/artist play, that's fine, but then they have no right to criticize the band for belonging to that genre. You only criticize a band for embodying a genre badly.

1: If somebody doesn't like sugary r&b inspired pop, they should shut up about the early Merseybeat Beatles stuff.
2: If somebody doesn't like melodious brightly harmonized pop/rock'n'roll, they should shut up about all of the Beatles stuff.
3: In fact, if somebody doesn't really like pop music at all, (which is 9/10 times the case with Beatles hatas), they should shut up about all pop music and leave it to us who actually enjoy it. God, there's nothing more irritating than an extreme diehard hate-all-else proggy or metalhead feeling they're in a position to comment on the Beatles.
4: If you don't like folk, you're in no position to comment on Nick Drake.
5: If you don't like rap, you're in no position to ridicule the skills of Biggie Smalls.
6: If you don't like classical, = no right to comment on Mozart.

If on the other hand somebody genuinely likes music of that description, they have a right to criticize as much as they like. I'll respect their view unreservedly.

Too right...I beleive in 3 things the King James bible, the marine corps, and Richard Jalen!!!!!

The Beatles although called it quits too soon, the Rolling Stones have gone on way too long. What used to be one of the greatest bands is now a joke.

About the Stones, I've heard quite a few albums and nothing seems to touch Exile On Main Street? I found that interesting (if it's true and it's not just me being underexposed) since it was made in the 70s - you might expect that their best of best work would be in the 60s.

Let It Bleed?
Beggars Banquet?
Between The Buttons?

The stones were better live and that is why they still tour. Their music is good live like the who.
The Beatles later work is orchastra orientated so live shows would be theatre rather then live gigs. I mean, they couldn't perform songs from pepper at the Marquee and get everyone up for the gig. That is why people prefer live stones.
The stones did he acid phase but returned to rock quickly.
Bands that do good live gigs always keep going but bands that do studio work tend to either stop touring or tour their other work that is better live. The Beatles wouldn't tour with "love me do" anymore so they just quit.
The stones were a live band like oasis who emulate them now.

The Beatles had plenty of stuff to tour with even if you just took Hard Days Night --> Rubber Soul and the non-album singles (e.g. Day Tripper, Paperback Writer, I Feel Fine) and the B-Sides (e.g. She's A Woman, I'm Down). But you're right that Sgt.Pepper was not tourable material for its orchestral orientation.

However, I think you got it the wrong way round. They didn't stop touring because of the sonic shift. Rather, the sonic shift was borne out of their decision to stop touring. Sgt.Pepper for example was originally conceived when the Beatles were exploring the question of how they could create a record that would do the touring for them. That's where the fictional band concept arose from.

yeah that's true. They were also worried about attcks on their lives as they made powerfull enemies.
I also think that lsd and psychedelia and spiritual thinking was more long standing with the beatles when the stones went right back to rock after Brian died.
It is possible to do live shows with conceptual albums like Floyd but in the main live concerts are about more rock n roll pub type numbers and the stones wrote them.
On a purely personal level I think the beatles are like spots and shakespeare to a teenager who is into music or making a band. Like me listening to love me do and falling in love for the first time and later generations do the same and all tell each other the anecdote about the movement you need is on your shoulder with Lennon saying to Paul, "no that is the best line."
But as an adult I find the beatles a bit depressing now and I am a bit too old to enjoy love me do the same way.
Where as the Stones early stuff does kind of stay fresh and makes me want to roll one and knock back you know.
There is something about some of the beatles work that has become to my mind like seaside trips in the UK. Like Blackpool pleasure beach kiss me quick hats in the eighties if you get me. Like Morrissey's Every day's like Sunday (I love that song) portrays.
A bit like Elvis it makes you think of old men who have pictures of him on their walls and still gel their hair back and it reminds me of old retired peoples social bingo days out listening to The wonder of you.
The beatles have that same effect on me and lots of other people I speak to.
Where as the Stones still sound like fresh, sexy, sassy and cool.
But you are right Richard. I do remember reading that. In some ways when you think about it the beatles were very good live if you ever listened to their bbc recordings when they first started recording rock n roll.
I think that marketing of them for mass appeal was what Lennon hated himself. He said he felt a prick in the same suit like that.
I'd say the stones are better if I'm going to decide.
Oh yeah, one other thing about the stones, they were so fresh and unique when they came out. They were not original as they loved R&B and the blacks in the states were doing what they did but to the UK they were so new, sexy and sassy whereas the Beatles kind of came from a genre and the Beach Boys had already done the same stuff a couple of years earlier and so were other Epstein bands.
This may be a bit sweeping but perhaps the stones introduced the UK to R&B and then the Who followed.
The stones were more inovative in the UK for that reason I think.

Bull****. The Beatles stopped touring because they got jaded with the thousands of screaming teenagers outside their hotel every night, and decided they wanted to make music for themselves. They started out as a Rock n' Roll band, and only changed when Brian Epstein started managing them. To everyone who calls the Beatles simply 'pop' or whatever, listen to Helter Skelter, A Day In The Life etc.

No, they stopped touring because Epstein died and because they were bored of what they were doing and because they had heard the Beach Boys.
And when I say they I should say Lennon as it was his band and he called the shots.
They were also worried about their lives with serious assasinations going on in the US and they were against the war.
And John met Yoko and wanted different things.
You do have a point about helter skelter and other John songs that is true.
It is not either or but a combination.
But to return to the original point I do think all things considered the stones are a better rock n roll band in terms of live and rock your socks off.
But lets face it noone could really say one was more then the other.
I would put a case for the stones as R&B from the US like Muddy Waters is more Rock n Roll and the type of songs you could get a street going to.
The Beatles later work is more introspective and Rock n Roll usually means good time.
Thats the best case I can put but wouldn't argue too feircely for it.

But Paul wrote Helter Skelter...Anway, every single member of the band has said they stopped touring because they got tired physically and mentally of life on the road. The things you mentioned were factors though. I think the Beatles had plenty of grit, it's just their earlier records earned them a soft reputation. Rock n' Roll means sex, so...Really though, I don't think Rock has to be confined to loud-mouthed sex pots.

Yeah thats true.
You could say not going on the road aint rock n roll though.
I suppose I'd be repeating myself saying that the stones were more edgy and loose and corrupt then the beatles.
The earlier point about the beatles been nursury rhyme like is true too I think.
I mean, the stones sang about sex and drugs and rock n roll.
It really is just taste. I once read an article that said if the stones had all died in a plane crash around 69 they'd be hailed forever as the best rock n roll band ever full stop. The Beatles split did mean they didn't screw up or make crap songs etc.
I also read John wanted to do rock n roll numbers that were quick and paul wanted ballads and george just wanted to get a few songs on the albums.
I can't knock the beatles because like I said when you are at school learning guitar you watch the beatles and their films and you maybe have a dobeee for the first time it all seems so damn great listening to their early songs then their later songs and it meshes with childlike imagery and all seems so bloody brilliant. I don't know about you but we'd sing yellow submarine and yesterday in assembly but not tumbling dice so as kids we saw the beatles as like part of our lives and learning. I remember when I was 5 and john was shot and I didn't know who he was but I rember feeling like he was jesus or something when i'd see Imagine on tele he looked so spiritual and people saying he was dead as I didn't know young people died. That added to the beatles whole historic influence. I think kids today and tommorow will all go through that over and again. Then as you leave school and get into relationships (or try to) you start liking the stones as you are free and they sound sexy and liberating like the pistols and clash etc. Then after too much liberation you get into the floyd and reflect on it all.
I suppose that is a rock n roll template that all young aspiring bands go through!!!
So I wouldn't then get older and knock the beatles for been what they were.
John Lennon's last album was an attempt to get back to good old rock n roll.
I suppose also the beatles can be studenty and acid whereas the stones appeal to blue collar workers like my dad with honky tonk woman etc.
But the beatles are like shakespeare to young blokes picking up a guitar at school and been extremely positive.
etc etc etc!!!

But the Beatles were a pop band. Sgt Pepper onwards is also pop, albeit a more sophisticated type than what appeared on say Please Please Me --> Beatles For Sale. Pop simply means that the music is more focused on melody and hooks, and on creating enjoyable, catchy vocal/instrumental arrangements. About 97% of the Beatles' discography is precisely like this. It varies simply in levels of sophistication and depth of ideas and concepts. That this is the case does not detract at all from the excellence of this band and fans should not feel they need to avoid admitting it.

Saying that music is "just pop" is completely meaningless. "Pop" is as legitimate a format of music as is metal or hard rock or jazz or rap or soul or funk or punk or anything else. Saying that the Beatles were "just pop" is about as insulting and meaningful as saying that Mozart was "just classical" or that Nas is "just rap". Which, needless to say, is not very much at all.

Far as the early Beatles stuff went, of course John and Paul wanted to write it. They weren't even interested in having a free reign in those days. Paul for example wrote Love Me Do years before The Beatles even formed. Every stage of their careers was a part of their development as songwriters, and the signs of development are present all the time: "childish love songs" might be a way of describing the first two albums, but they're already by-and-large well away from that and much changed & expanded as early as Hard Days Night, 1964! But even then, their earliest stuff is always great. There's a good reason why they became so popular from Please Please Me onwards, and it's because those early hits were incredible, brilliant pop and people just fell in love with them straight away. The albums are consistently good too with very little filler. Loz, most detractors haven't even listened to any of the early albums and they know it full well! Even many serious Beatles fans have never bothered listening to the first 2 albums and probably skipped Beatles For Sale too, to say nothing of the haters.

"Childish love songs" does not describe the majority of the Beatles' early stuff any more than "mystical bollocks" describes the later stuff. It doesn't even describe a quarter of it. The majority of the album material is not really like that at all, there's a lot more variety, sophistication and abstraction going on than that. Hell, a significant bunch of the later songs are simply stories and character portraits. Drug-induced visions etc make up very very little of the Beatles' later lyrical material. But then I guess one'd have to have spent enough time with the albums to know that.

Sonically, the band were always astounding in their diversity and trial-n-error experimentation even early on. The influences are extremely wide and diverse, one needs only to pick out one of the early non-LP singles to see that. 1964, John's riff-driven I Feel Fine as the A-Side and Paul's Little Richard-inspired She's A Woman as the B-Side. They were always playing around in ways that most other acts were not - so many things were attempted early on it's hard to summarize. But again, one'd have to care enough about that sort of music and spend enough time with the early material to come across all this.

I didn't say they weren't pop, I said 'simply pop'. Their later music wasn't just exclusively designed to be catchy.

No, that is true. But that doesn't make the stuff that was bad or any less worthy.

Man you know your stuff Richard.
I reckon that the guy means that pop has never been considered as cool as rock.
It isn't lets face it. That is why putting the beatles in pop lessens them a bit in many peoples eyes in terms of a sort of cred arguement.
It doesn't when you look at it thoroughly but in general unconcious it does to many.
Some writers even said that Lennon despised the beatles early on just he wanted a life and some cash.
You know like playing hard rock and great rock covers in hamburg then dressing up like a bit of a jaffa to get friendly airplay. It wasn't really him as he was more like the stones image then the stones were.
Pop these days helps that image of MOR crap with pop idol etc.
Whereas the who and stones and kinks get more cred looking back for been real rock about adult themes that the beatles early work lacked.
But like you said b sides and that gave them a chane to sneak in what they were really about even if noone noticed including me.
Perhaps the stones were more true to themselves?????
They certainly got abuse and stick like the pistols later did for their attitude.
so they appear anti establishment and therefore better.
Not in reality but in peoples minds.
I'll have to look out for those you mentioned Richard as they are new to me.
Real love is a great song that came about in the 90's and I love the video when george and paul hug for the first meet in years and then it switches to john pulling a face in 62.
Liam gallagher said everyone considers keef the idea of rock cool but lennon in his white suit with his fooking white plimsols to do that and be cool takes something!!
ah ha ha.

They both suck a$$.

Why?

I would think thats why

Just about.

I don't really think they both suck ass, I just got tired of watching everyone wax philosophical about which one is better. They both have redeeming qualities, but neither one is just out-of-this-world awesome. This is all my humble opinion of course.