Musicians don't normally compare themselves to other musicians on a competitive level...it's just us fans who do that...I'm a big Stones fan...but I liked the Beatles too...both bands have been major influences on todays music. Sure the media played them off against each other back in the early days...but there was never any real compitition between the two bands.
What are you talking about Mick? "The Beatles had never been on the stage for years," or "The Beatles hadn't done a show since 1966." Well, I guess the rooftop concert in 1969 does not count as a show; even when musically, technically and creativaley overshadows (without recurring to Mick's gimmicks and affected dancing) anything the Stones have done live for 50 years that they've been around just ripping people off playing dead, souless shows, just going through the motions. No comparison.
im sorry but the Beatles are flat out, the better band..period..the Stones would never have been heard of if the Beatles hadnt written their first damn song for them..live/studio..doesnt matter..you can keep Micks faggot ass dancing and shit, I will gladly take the charm, wit, and over all talent of the Beatles..any day...
@jillzi7 another asinine and insipid comment. Once someone makes a comment like this, everything following has to be considered invalid. If you don't like The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, or Dylan...just say so as all music is subjective. But bashing artist who has obviously proven their merit through time, just leaves you looking the buffoon.
@jillzi7 I agree with you, you wasn't talking to me. I made a general statement on your comment which is meant for those who make comments like yours. Which YOU took personally. Well good! Take it personally! As for myself, your assumption is wrong, as I didn't take your comment personally. As I would guess, comprehension difficulties? Bummer!
@jillzi7 grow up? Is that some sort of sick irony? You're an obvious imbecile who should not be commenting on any subjet and you're asking me to grow up? The best you can do anywhere, is correct grammar and spelling. Oh, and rip off others words and phrases. You never should have drop out of high school dipshit. You're paying the price for that mistake now.
Any real rivalry was created by the press, and apart from that, the only squabbles between the two were a couple of sharp comments from John after the Beatles split, and they were because at that point he was attacking everybody, due to primal scream therapy, huge amounts of drugs and the bad influence of Yoko.
The Beatles were arguably better live at singing and harmonies and they were as tight as the Stones ever have been before 1966, when the grind and noise had made them a bit sloppy.
I love Mick and the Rolling Stones but he is talking rubbish here. There was never any rivalry when they met each other and the Beatles helped the Stones by giving them their second hit. As for the Beatles live performances, saying that they did a couple of songs in a couple of special shows it bullshit. The Beatles performed in a stadium way before the Stones and, until they had been playing with audiences who stopped them from hearing themselves, they were just as good live as the Stones.
Micks lips were getting in the way of his thoughts. Get over it Mick---as good as the The Stones were, you guys were nowhere near the writers the Beatles were. Face it--the world knows it. You owe your career to them-- you bastard. The melodies the Beatles produced with their chords was second to NONE. Legendary guitarist Jimi Hendrix couldn't stand you either and said you were "a faggot". I think he was right, ya know.
-tors realise that the early to mid Beatles were about FUCKING MELODIES- not lyrics. In the early 60s people didn't want social commentary they just wanted to dance to the bastard.
RollingOrmond and others (including Dylan) seem to forget that when the Beatles started to record, no one was looking for world- changing lyrics. At that time a kind of trivial lyricism was sufficient, and the talent of the Beatles is that their early stuff sounds like it was almost like a stream of consciousness and wrote itself.
Once again we have someone who thinks putting something like 'Love Me Do' against 'Sympathy For The Devil' is a fair comparison- bullshit. When will Beatles detract
@222clocks Stones better live? I think you'd have to conclude that because they played so many more live shows than the Beatles. But have you heard the Beatles in '66 in Japan? Listen to how tight they are! (And the audience isn't screaming, for once.) They were incredible--"Paperback Writer," for example. The Stones could not possibly top that.
@charold3 Yes I have, and it's a great recording! I really like John's Nowhere man on that record. I won't argue the fact that The Beatles had better quality when performing live. You can hear that on the BBC recordings as well. And actually by 1969, The Beatles played more live shows. That's how they developed that tight sound. They did hundreds of shows in Germany and Liverpool compared to the few The Stones did in London.
@charold3 Cont. My point is, The Beatles audience were mainly thrilled by the songs they were familiar with. Not with the performance. Where as The Stones were a stage band and incorporated sexuality and a badboy image. The Beatles also quit performing before the era of the great sound stage's were introduced. John once said "Our last concerts, we were still using amps the size of peanuts". I feel The Beatles would've been great had they evolved into a touring rock n roll force.
@222clocks "The Stones were a stage band and incorporated sexuality and a badboy image" That's the only way they could last, because they lacked a lot when it came to playing live (zero musicianship). Watch some more of their live performances, and only 1 out of 30 are more or less decent (with Mick's voice sounding all empty and Keith's mind somewhere else); so of course, they had to replace that with the gimmicks. Think of stage bands like Queen and The Who and you'll get my point. No match.
@222clocks "The Beatles would've been great had they evolved into a touring rock n roll force." So The Beatles weren't great at all, they were just like any other band? I guess "Rubber Soul," "Revolver," "Sgt. Pepper," "Magical Mistery Tour," The Beatles (White Album)," "Let it Be," and "Abbey Road" albums were just an ilusion? What have the Stones (or any other band, for that matter) made in 50 years close to any one of those albums. Even just one song out of those albums would be a whole lot.
@Imsteppenwolf You're missing the point, and need to re-read previous comments. Also, you're obviously biased and you lack the knowledge and understanding worthy of my response. If you don't agree with the critical consensus when it comes to rock and roll, why make an inept attempt refuting? Kind of imbecilic of you yes?
@222clocks "Also, you're obviously biased and you lack the knowledge and understanding worthy of my response." You're describing yourself with that statement; that's why you get so bent out of shape and start insulting. You say I lack knowledge but I named you Beatles albums that any rocker would identify as good; and also gave you facts by suggesting you to watch more live performances by the Stones (Youtube). What points have you proven, other than being what jillzi7 says you are?
@222clocks ..wow, let it go already..no need to cry and throw a fit..its only a utube video for crying out loud..i will ask you one more time to please grow up and stop posting to me
@jillzi7 If you want to let it go then just piss off. I was finished with your empty head and what do I get? I have the dolt writing me back! You got to be kidding.
@jillzi7 I'm not going to argue with you about that, because I'm afraid you're right. "let it go already..no need to cry and throw a fit..its only a utube video for crying out loud" I hope somebody gets the point.
@charold3 BTW, I've seen all 4 Beatles perform throughout the 70's & 80's. Just not together. Even Ringo's AllStar band was a joy. But ALL 4 of them on stage...they're basically just singers. As they were when together. I love their sound and feel they are the greatest pop band of all time. Listen to them Daily!! But the Stones? That '72 tour, the '75 tour, and even this last tour...flat out amazing! Peace dude!!
Soory folks, I love the stones big time, but after sgt. peppers came out, every band icluding the stones, were like um, how in the hell are we gonna top that? But the real truth is that it was reveolver that changed the way music was to be recorded... and yes the stones envied what they did after that album came out. Stating that, the stones wrote some of the best music that I love...
Jagger's basically saying, "Uh, the Beatles were ancient history by the time we did Exile, and all this shit about them being relevant to the public by '72 is just revisionist history made up by people who weren't there forty years later."
I'm a huge Beatles fan AND a Rolling Stones fan. My friends and I would be out drinking and, inevitably, we'd start asking all the silly cliche questions like "Ginger or Mary Ann?" and "Beatles or Stones?", and stuff like that. For me, the Stones' last hurrah was "Tattoo You", but even if that's where the line is drawn, that's 18 years of music. Still, what the Beatles did from 1962-1970 is incomparable, to just for an 8-year period, but for a career.
The Beatles still, to this day, have the greatest song collection in rock. The Stones come close but no one wrote as many great songs as Beatles. Even in early 1964, the Beatles were writing Songs like Any Time At All, I'll Cry Instead, You Can't Do That, I Wanna Be Your Man, Don't Bother Me, oh the list is endless. The Stones didn't even start writing songs of note until 65 and did not come out with anything resembling a complete album until 66. Love both but c'mon, Beatle bashing is ignorant
@Available8063 The beatles when they started writing, they werent innovative, they just played lovey dovey shit. The Rolling Stones wrote Satisfaction about not getting to get love, Under my Thumb about telling a girl to shut the fuck up, Brown sugar about interrcial sex, Jumping Jack Flash is about Child Abuse, there is no band more innovative then The Rolling STones, and you wanna go love songs? Keys to your love, Anybody seen my baby?, Beat Of burden, Fool to cry.
@Colin2k41 When the Beatles started the Stones were not even in existence. Yes, Please, Please Me (the album) and the singles from 63 were love pop with a bit of the energy of rock and roll. But the signs were already there (Please, Please Me the song, I Saw Her Standing There, great rock and roll covers). The rest pure crap. But the Stones were doing nothing but covering r and b numbers and that gets old real fast. And keep the comparisons to the years both bands were active.
@Colin2k41 comparing laye 70s Stones to 60s era Beatles is goofy. The fact is The Stones had the Beatles trying to imitate them on just a few occasions (Day Tripper, for example). The one contemporary innovative than the Beatles was Dylan (and to a certain extent Ray Davies). All three were way ahead of the Stones in the writing department until 65 when Jagger and Richards took off and thankfully (under the Beatles influence) expanded their musical scope.
@Available8063 The Stones could've written empty pop songs as early as '64, but, like Renaissance artists who copied masters until they were ready, they did blues and soul covers until they could deliver masterpieces like Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Sympathy, Gimme Shelter, etc., songs which make the Beatles lyrics sound lukewarm and dull.
@Colin2k41 Finally, listen to when each Beatles song was released, listen to when the Stones follow up. Yes, the Stones are incredible from 65-68 as singles writers. And like I said, a couple of times they outdid the Beatles, but c'mon, Tomorrow Never Knows, Norweigian Wood, Love You To, I'm Only Sleeping, Rain, no The Beatles more than proved their worth. Sorry for some of the spelling, wrote these quickly
I personally like the Stones, but if the truth be known, Abba, Queen & Led Zeppelin have sold more records than the Stones. (None of which I like better than the Stones).
the stones did not even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
the stones did not even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
the stones didn even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
the stones didn even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
@RiickJamesBiitch TOTAL BULLSHIT. The Stones wrote TONS of originals. And they never could be as big as the family friendly happy meals of pop, the Beatles. That's their edge.
Satisfaction, Get Off of My Cloud, Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar, Angie, Miss You - all #1s, all written by Jagger/Richards.
Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown, Tumblin' Dice, It's Only Rock N' Roll, Fool To Cry, Start Me up, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Beast of Burden, Waiting On A Friend - all top twenty hits, all written by Jagger/Richards. Documented fact.
@steveconn I don't understand why there should be a divide between liking The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.
To say that they wrote 'family friendly happy meals of pop' is silly. They gave The Rolling Stones, 'I wanna be your man', which Mick Jagger has said broke the band in England.
@petegiant The Stones took the song, another mild pop number, and blues it up into a more raw song. Just a listen to their catalogue shows the Beatles wrote lightweight boyband material until they discovered Dylan and drugs (then it became smug, overproduced candy, but that's another story...)
the stones didn even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
When Brian Jones was with the band, the Stones were my favorite over the Beatles as they were more bluesy and appealed more to my musical sensibilities. After he was kicked out of the band and then died, the Stones lost their direction for me and became more commercial. While I still enjoyed them. I didn't like them as much and thought they were not as sharp. I enjoyed much of the Beatles but they were not as interesting to me as the Stones. Later I found I remember more of their songs.
@tuna2k10 this is pretty simple and obvious people. Like who you want. But the Beatles were the most influential,most critically acclaimed, and most popular band ever. So if someone wants to say the Beatles are the greatest band ever its hard to argue with them. I hate it when people want to argue about that simple point. That being said, I like the Stones much much better then the Beatles. But my personally taste doesn't determine who is the greater band. There SIMPLE.
@45arther It's hard for me to label ANY band as the "greatest band ever". I believe music is very subjective. Also, it's not just the level of talent you have to look at.. it's also the group dynamics, style of music. Most of the bands I like have similar elements but I just can't compare them to one another. Take the Stones and the Beatles. The sounds that they each produce are SO different. I'm sorry, but I just can't give into popular "critical acclaim" when deciding on the quality of a band.
The Stones are definitely more versatile when it comes to writing music and were a touring band who liked to play live and still do because they love it unlike the Beatles who preferred to be more of a studio band.
@Findogish They never preferred to be a studio band, there was no point to them gigging because of all the screaming muppets who drowned out their music.
@DMarriott81 it is a well touted very valid theory that ghost writers were instrumental in latter beatles material...it is very evident to see the severe change in their views their melodies style and musical ability, from just a short time before..and likewise when they split each individual went back to again writing stuff very similar to early beatles quality and not the deeper stuff that came in their later years as a band...perhaps when paul and ringo are gone the truth will emerge.
I would suggest that you go to the grassy knoll in Dallas to find out about the ghost writers and if the answer isn't there you might want to drive up to Area 51, they probably have proof there of what you're saying.
As for waiting for them to be gone, there's ony Ringo left because "Paul is dead" already and that was proven in 1969.
BTW, you shouldnt hide behind the name of a great artist like that Mr. Marley
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were both great bands, fighting over who was 'better' is silly... it's like arguing over who was the better composer Beethoven or Mozart... you really can't compare because they were both legends, but had different styles. The Rolling Stones were much more sexual, raw and bluesy rock and roll than the Beatles, who were more soft sounding with a wide range of experimental jams that pushed the limits of pop music and songwriting in their lyrics.
Entrevistador a Robert Plant:"?Que piensas de the Beatles?"respuesta:"Demasiado grandes".Entrevistador:"?Y The Stones?"respuesta:"The Great Pretenders".
!joder que mal escrito me ha salido!bueno sigo,los Stones siempre me gustaron,hasta Black & Blue,hay dejaron de interesarme.Los he visto en directo en España,pero sin Brian Jones,con un Keith Richard deplorable y Bill Wyman y C.Watts correctos.!que mania con que los Stones eran buenos en directo y los Beatles no!FALSO
The Beatles we're pop. The Dave Clark Five was pop. The Monkees were pop. All those little jerk me off bands were pop music. The Stones created Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Totally different bands. The Stones however are one of the best live bands in rock and roll history and consistantly hold record attendance figures. The Beatles (even by Paul's admissions, were not a good live band."
@dannyd1572 Esa opinión es un "Cliché",un lugar común, Paul era el mejor bajo del mundo(lo sigue siendo)John,que decir,un genio con miedo escenico,Harrison suplia el virtuosismo,por la exactitud,la armonia y buen gusto y Ringo...cuanta mierda se le a echado encima.Antes de salir en grabaciones,no habian baterias de Pop-rock,nadie usaba de esa manera los platillos,y lo mejor !los silencios!sabia,cuando un redoble sobraba y tantas novedades(la manta en el bombo,etc)
@LiquorWreckedEmGood I'm just agreeing with Paul Mcartney who said in his book that they were not a good live band..they were a studio band. Is there a live Beatles album that is so great? The Stones "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out" from the 69' tour is one of the greatest concert albums of all time. Not just my opinion but by critics. Many critics.
@LiquorWreckedEmGood I don't know..ask Paul Mcartney. He said it to. You really don't know much about 60's rock. In 1965 the Stones released three of their biggest singles Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, and The Last Time. I hardly think they were playing little state fairs and small clubs. How can you do that WHEN YOUR THE LARGEST SELLING ROAD ACT OF 1965!
@LiquorWreckedEmGood According to Wikepedia the Beatles 1965 tour only had 10 dates. I think you should note that the Stones 1965 tour was played in nearly 20 different countries.
you said: "I hardly think they were playing little state fairs and small clubs."
i replied with the FACT that they played mostly small auditoriums, civic centers, and even one gymnasium.
the Beatles could have sold out stadiums the world over even if they toured 365 days a year for 5 years straight. the fact that they chose not to does not make the stones a better live act. if you believe that then you lack basic logical reasoning skills.
@LiquorWreckedEmGood If the Beatles would have toured 5 years for 365 days straight then they would have never been successful. Just think of all the Beatles albums that would never have been made. Besides, they wouldn't go out on the road after 1966. Do you know why? You need to read up on the John Lennon thinks he's Jesus scandal. He had hits on him Beatles a better studio group and Stones are the greatest touring group of all time. bar none.
@dannyd1572 Are you kidding me? Beatles records were being sold in millions when "I want to hold your hand came out". Beatles did not need to tour, and they did not.,
@dannyd1572 No no no you got it all wrong. They were a great live band. Most people from that decade remembers the shea stadium concert where it was "the loudest thing I have ever heard." The Beatles were a great live band. But yes they could not tour. They did not feel like it. THe stress that was put on them was enormous.
Look at Paul McCartney now. I went to him and it was actually the best concert I have ever been to. And I have been to Pink Floyd(real)Grateful dead. etc.
@AfroGangsta10 They could have been then. I don't know. I've seen Paul interviewed, read his book and like he said and even Keith Richards said...they weren't a great live band. Paul said that it was hitting one chord and the rest was basically just noise. He mentions the Shea stadium concert where John starts cracking up while playing the piano. He said that he was laughing because he didn't have it plugged in. Or maybe because he wasn't playing it at all and just acting like it. LOL
ehhh, nooooo, look, lemmy killmister saw both bands live, the beatles during their speed inhaled hambrug red light prostitute bar fight repperbahn days and the stones during their like every other band london club scene days, the beatles impressed him, the stones sucked in comparision, playing 8 hour sets in hamburg beats london, and shea is an awesome show if you think about the beatles not hearing what the others play and they're still tight as hell.
and john cracked up there because of the noise the audience couldn't hear him anyway, so he had some fun with the kyes that were plugged in, the beatles acted nice, the stones acted tough (actually, oldham formed their image after what the beatles were really like during their hamburg/cavern days, since he worked for epstein back then.
@dannyd1572 Hahahah that's funny. Alright maybe they weren't back then because they didn't really have to be. Most people that bought tickets back in the 60's just wanted to see the Beatles. Let alone hear them play. haha But live act goes to the stones.
@OropherThranduil I know- I've seen them 6 times and it seems like its the same concert over and over. However, each new concert breaks attendance records. Here they are almost 70 (Charlie Watts is 70) and still breaking records....thats pretty good. Mcartney and Ringo could go out and do the same but they won't and thats too bad.
that#s because bill wyman wasn't worth a damn as a musician and a stone, just like they replaced brian and then mick, the beatles re unique in the way, take one out and it's not the beatles, paul and ringo don't want to do the mike love, the stones still have jagger richards, the beatles lost lennon and then harrison, if jagger or richards continue under the stones name when each of them dies i'll lose about every bot of respect for him.
@OropherThranduil Bill Wyman is a great bass player.Did you know he had a more successful solo career with higher charting hits. You can not listen to Miss You or 19th Nervous Breakdown and say that Bill Wyman wasn't good. Miss You is one of the greatest bass lines of all time. The Stones went to hell after Bill Wyman left. Their sound hasn't been the same since. That backing foundation between him and Charlie Watts was unmatched by any other bass-drums combo.
wyman watts weren't as imaginative and versatile as starr/mccartney, they hadn#t the force and power of entwistle/moon, just like bonham/jones, and they weren't as perectly melodic as what brian wilson used for the beach boys, kaye/blaine.
@OropherThranduil Ringo wasn't a good drummer he was just very unique and it fit. If you watch him play you see that he doesn't play like any other drummer. But it works. If you like banging and trying to get in as many notes and beats per second as you can, then yes Moon and Enwhistle were great. I think so anyway. But there is something special about the tightness when Wyman's bass is just a 1/2 second behind Watts and then there is Keith. Its a nice mesh of things.
ringo not a good drummer, ask about any drummer for his infleunces and he'll mention ringo, Lennon got into abstract lyrics and his acid rock guitar style, McCartney expanded and refined his pop-writing craft, and Harrison got very involved in authentic Indian music and Indian instruments. Ringo, meanwhile, had the challenge of adapting to everyone's style. He always played what was called for. If he had been a rigid drummer, set in his ways, The Beatles would have been in trouble.
@OropherThranduil Buddy RIch, Gene Krupa, Alan Gratzer (REO) Charlie Watts, and if your talking about adapting to music styles and adapting to situations/ improvising, then there is now farther to look than John Densmore or Mitch Mitchell. In my opinion Ringo was unique.If you listen to him he never plays the same way twice. He ads fills that are not on time but they work. HIs style is unique. THere is no other drummer like Ringo. Watts boring, good drummers don't need all that flash.
ringo is always in the exact time he wants to be in and the others want him to be in.
it's just that a lot of beatles songs have time changes and so on, ringo was like a human metroonome, you know who said that, elvis drummer dj fontana.
and densmore pretty much had a style, just like mitchell, ringo really palyed a songwriters version of a song, and ringo isn't flashy AND not boring, while watts os boring but doesnt even overshadow that with flash, it's obvious.
watts for me is boring, nothing happens in a stones song rythm wise, it's just your averga ebeat over a boring bassline, rocksolid rytjm section, nothing more.
and i'm also no big moon fan, but entwistle was a fucking genius, and moons madness created around that was also uniqe, and wyman, god, i hate that guys playing, he's so unimaginative and average, there's a reason nobody ever talks about them, there's not much to talk about especially comapred to the beatles.
their name is like their logo, over here in germany you see thousands and thousands of ghetto turk hip hoppers wearing it without even knowing it's the stones logo, i was at 2 paul mccartney concerts 2 years ago, they were perfect, pauls isn't the least bit sloppy like keith or overuser of his voice like jagger (his singing now is a caricature of himself), paul played for 3 straight hours and still he hadn't even played all the hits i wanted to hear.
@OropherThranduil Hey Germany- Grandma was a Metzger, so that makes me part German anyway. Yes, the Stones were alot about marketing. But amazingly not as bad as the Beatles. Do you know what the Beatles made the most money on? You wouldn't guess it in a 100 guesses. According to Paul Mcartney is was selling the Apple Logo and name to Macintosh. Sounds unbelievable but its in his book. Said the Beatles still get residuals of it so it must have been a hell of a contract. So that's marketing.
while the ringo all star band show i was 2 weeks ago (ringo just turned 71 a week ago) was also great, 2 hours, all the early beatles hits sung by ringo, some later tracks and the band was great, edgar winter was awesome (10 minute version o frankenstein), rick derringer played solos like a god) and sang songs like hang on sloopy, just a great atmosphere at both, at the paul concert i stood right before paul for the whole concert, he played bass, lead guitar, mandolin, ukulele and piano.
@OropherThranduil I'll admit the Beatles are more of fine tuned musicians. I know their concerts are great. I seen and interviewed Ringo at Farm Aid in Ames, Iowa. The Stones are more of a production concert. I like Paul but I'd rather see lights and action on the stage than someone sitting at a piano or standing onstage with a bass for three hours. Don't get me wrong, I'd pay if he was in a 100 mile radius, but I'd take the Stones when it came to a concert.
while the beatles, jesus, from the hard rocking fast bassline of i saw her standing there trough the brilliance of day tripper, and then paperback writer and rain, and ringo, well, a unique drummer, unreplacable unlike watts, watss was nothing special, the kinks drummer could have easily replaced him, pretty basic styles, you never hear that''jazz influence'' stones fans want to tell you about because the stones rythm tracks are so average.
@OropherThranduil My favorite bass lines of Pauls have to be Helter Skelter, Don't Let Me Down, and of course Come Together. But Don't Let Me Down...a very underrated song, has a magnificent bass line.
yeah, great song, great bassline, and i've got a feeling, george's guitar is pure awesome, also pual on something, the master of melodic, the spare, hard rocking fender jazz bass notes on yer blues, the bassrun at the end of monkey, the whole pepper album is a giant bass symphony, on i want you he puts even john paul jones to a shame, best moment right after the last vocal part before the noise kicks in, that wouwouWOUAMMM.
@OropherThranduil If your talking about the same Yer Blues as I am, that was the supergroup called The Dirty Mac, which was Eric Clapton, Mitch Mitchell, Lennon and Keith Richards on bass. Good song tho. Out of all of the Beatles work Abbey Road is my favorite. Golden Slumbers is way, way too short. The first part of that song could of went on for another 5 minutes before going into "your gonna carry that weight" part. Abbey Road as a whole is a materpeice- just like Exile On Main St.
we agree on abbey road, but find exile on main street massively overrated, it goes on for too long, almost no song sticks out in my mind from it, aftermath is probably my fave by them.
yer blues was a track on the while album, with paul on jazz fender bass (a rarity), john on rytjm, george on lead (that solo is a screaming blues kller) and ringo on drums, the stones rock circus version is also great, but i prefer the white album cut.
@OropherThranduil "Happy" or "Tumblin Dice" great songs from Exile. Exile was one of the first Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll albums. You have to admit, before the Stones it was all pop bands composed of fine dressed cookie cutter bands. The Stones were the first to combine the pleasures of Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Haven't heard the White Album version of that. I can honestly say I was never a White Album fan. Kind of like Beggars Banquet..to me just boring.
i LOVE the white album, so many genres, som any great songs, from ska to heavy metal, a variety never rivaled by any other band, more genres on one album than the stones had in 50 years.
like i told you, the stones early bad boy image was as manufactured as the beatles nice image, oldham worked for epstein so he knew exactly how the beatles behaved during the hamburg years and after that he modeled the stones.
@OropherThranduil I would have to say Exile On Main Street was a more diverse album. You had soca, rock, country, blues, bar room boogie, gospel, and a couple songs that don't fit any category. An album that was no well recieved but is now getting attention as a masterpeice. Personally for me I'd have to say the first Rock and Roll album that included sex, drugs, and rock and roll would be Let It Bleed. Whats yours?
elvis presley debut, hearbreak hotel, more sex couldn't go on the radio in 56, jerry lee lewis(the man sang about balls of fire), probably his 63 live album live at the star club, james brown live at the apollo, but the first in 60s sytle about sex drugs and so on was the velvet undergrounds debut, it deals with drug abuse, prostitution, sadism and masochism and sexual deviancy, pretty fucking daring.
@OropherThranduil No..SEx Drugs Rock and Roll as we know them. Heart Break Hotel had no drugs in it, neither did Great Balls of Fire, I mean DIrty, Raunchy, Dark. Things like Stray Cat Blues, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man, Sympathy For The Devil, Brown Sugar. I'm not talking about the sexually charged songs of Evlis, Jerry lee, and Brwon. While they were sexual..very sexual, they were not the dark raunchy drug fueld sex mixed with rock and roll. The Stones invented that.
sympathy for the devil has notihng to do with sex, drugs, or rock'n'roll, it#s actually a quite intelligent lyrics for the stones, speaking from the perespective of the devil after reading a book whose name i forgot.
Velvet Underground were dirtier and raunchier than the stones ever were, and i don't even like them.
also the stooges debut which came out some montsh before bleed, i wanny be your dog.
@OropherThranduil Not dark? Seriously? Paint It Black, Midnight Rambler, Sympathy, Dancing WIth Mr. D, Too Much Blood, I Just Wanna See His Face, Thru And Thru, Heartbreaker, Gimmee Shelter, Sway (specifically about living a demon life), Sister Morphine. I'd say those songs are pretty dark songs.
no, but the stones are just so fucking overrated, especially as a live band they haven't played anything worth since the 80s, and jee, they never again reached the heights taylor put them to.
just like in the studio, no greatness since 81.
they're dying a slow death.
and after 50 years they're still not reven close to rival the beatles in anything, not even sales, despite having 10 times as much official albums as the beatles have.
Oh, the poor loves. The crowds were too loud! Kinda forces my point, doesnt it? The Beatles were not a rock band. As for dissing the Stones for their reation at Altamont, well matey, you stand on a small stage in front of around half a million people and see how you react! At least the Stones had the balls to carry on. Unlike the chicken shit Beatles (BTW, thats a direct quote from Playboy's 1978 review of music).CCR did indeed outsell both bands, though i concede it might have been 1969 only.
That's all very good and well. I'm talking quality, not quantity. Any idiot can sell records, just ask Justin Bieber fans. Grandmothers liked the Beatles. Not so the Stones (though its different now, of course - lol). The Beatles were a pop act in my book. The Stones a rock act. When the Beatles tried to "get tough" after dressing up in satin suits in 67, they looked fake. BTW, Creedence Clearwater actually outsold both bands 2 - 1 from 68-70. And The Stones invented touring!
@corgi37 I love how you throw in fake facts. The Rollings Stones were part of pop culture, Although their genre was rock. The Beatles as a genre in their early years were definitely pop rock, Which there is nothing wrong with. But in their later years 1965+ they were definitely rock in pop culture. And no, CCR never out sold both bands between 68-70. Don't be silly, Look at the record sales then come back to me. And the beatles stopped playing live is because the crowds were too loud.
The Stones over took the Beatles way back in 68 with Beggars Banquet. No one could touch the Stones after that. Actually, just prior to that with the release of Jumping Jack Flash in May of 68. The Stones sped past all the others.
@corgi37 Wrong. The Stones never really surpassed The Beatles. Even to this day The Beatles still have more number one hits than ANY OTHER BAND in history with 27. The Beatles are still to this day The Most Successful Musical Act of All Time. The band/musicians that marked the era of the 60's... As any music credict will tell you, are The Beatles. With more albums sold than any other artist, more number one hits than any band in history, You're comment about Baggars Banquet is really not true.
@dannyd1572 Hahahaha is that it? My list goes on and on and all you got is that haha. I'll add one more Yesterday is the most covered song in history with over 3,000 covers. Heres another Srgt. Pepper is ranked the best album of all time by Rolling Stone magazine and countless credicts and musicians. Heres another The Beatles gave a hit to The Rolling Stones "I Wanna Be Your Man" The Beatles never took any hits from the Stones. So fuck the road Beatles own it all.
@Space9Man Who brought the hippie epic to London? WHo created that style? Sure wasn't anyone in the Beatles. You should read up on Brian Jones. You should also read up on all the different musical instruments he introduced the Beatles to and the songs he played on of theirs without being credited. You really need to read Paul Mcartney's book to read his appreciation for the Stones, especially Brian Jones.
@dannyd1572 YOU need to listen in to Kieth Richards and Mick Jagger's interviews where they are asked about The Beatles. Mick and Keith both admit how The Beatles paved the way for them and all other British acts to make it big globally and break out of their shells. Keith even personally has admitted to being a fan of The Beatles' music. The Beatles Helter Skelter, Ticket To Ride and Revolution are some of the 1st if not the 1st introductions to what would become Heavy Metal music.
@Space9Man Oh I have listened and you are correct. Keith has said his favorite Beatles song was "Please Please Me" which to me seems strange. He said the Beatles opened the door and paved the way for all the other bands to come in, especially America. I've always stated Helter Skelter was the first HEavy Metal song. FUnny how you never hear Metal fans sight the Beatles as the inventors of Heavy Metal...LOL They would never admit it. Satisfaction was also a early version Heavy Metal sound.
What people seem to forget is that a day after the Beatles stopped touring, the proper amps were invented. In 1965 when Beatles played Shea, they had a few 100W amps only for 56k people.
@sc4433a Because you seem to have difficulties writing anything of substance. "the beatles, rolling stones -- only a fool would try to say one is better then the other." - That's still a statement without any proof. You still look fucking brainless to me.
@sc4433a When you try to attack others at least write something with a point. Everyone can shout out messages such as," sc4433a is such a mother fucking brainless youtube asshole."
@LoneJedi "the candle that burns half as bright burns twice as long" 40+ yrs of stones material vs 6 yrs of beatles? who's gonna have more hits? as far as players, keith's a better guitarist than george or john, mick's harmonica playing is revered, and charlie's near perfect metre is way better than ringo's (could ringo ever play jazz?)
@lukafafrenz 6 years of Beatles shone much brighter than 40+ years of Stones. Beatles had 17 UK no.1 and 20 US no.1 hits, while Stones had ONLY 8 no.1 hits IN 40+ YEARS. Mick & Keith can never write music as beatuiful, innovative and influential as Lennon/McCartney's. BTW I don't see how Keith's a better guitarist than George. Did you mention Paul's melodic bassline?
@LoneJedi did you mention george martin? or the press & marketing team at columbia records, u.s.a.? there's a lot that you don't see, or hear for that matter -- and it looks like i'm not the only one to call you on it -- i think you may as well lose "oneJedi", and just go with the uppercase "L"
both the Rolling Stones and The Beatles are great, influential bands, but very very different styles of music, goals, and personalities. The Beatles weren't about performing, playing live and doing standard rock and roll, they were more into psychedelic and being creative in the studio, which works perfectly for them. The Stones touring and hard rocking heavy drugs kinda thing was fine for them, but wouldn't work for The Beatles. The Stones only outlasted The Beatles as far as playing live
Musicians don't normally compare themselves to other musicians on a competitive level...it's just us fans who do that...I'm a big Stones fan...but I liked the Beatles too...both bands have been major influences on todays music. Sure the media played them off against each other back in the early days...but there was never any real compitition between the two bands.
mackenziek1 2 weeks ago
Say the beatles never did live performances..they couldn't, they tried and you couldn't hear anything over the crowd...like the fuck
newguy3431 2 weeks ago
What are you talking about Mick? "The Beatles had never been on the stage for years," or "The Beatles hadn't done a show since 1966." Well, I guess the rooftop concert in 1969 does not count as a show; even when musically, technically and creativaley overshadows (without recurring to Mick's gimmicks and affected dancing) anything the Stones have done live for 50 years that they've been around just ripping people off playing dead, souless shows, just going through the motions. No comparison.
Imsteppenwolf 2 weeks ago
im sorry but the Beatles are flat out, the better band..period..the Stones would never have been heard of if the Beatles hadnt written their first damn song for them..live/studio..doesnt matter..you can keep Micks faggot ass dancing and shit, I will gladly take the charm, wit, and over all talent of the Beatles..any day...
jillzi7 2 weeks ago
@jillzi7 another asinine and insipid comment. Once someone makes a comment like this, everything following has to be considered invalid. If you don't like The Beatles, The Stones, Zeppelin, or Dylan...just say so as all music is subjective. But bashing artist who has obviously proven their merit through time, just leaves you looking the buffoon.
222clocks 2 weeks ago
@222clocks ..you are the buffoon by the mere reply to me..was not talking to you, so you didnt need to take it so personal, BU FUCKIN FOON..L M A O
jillzi7 2 weeks ago
@jillzi7 I agree with you, you wasn't talking to me. I made a general statement on your comment which is meant for those who make comments like yours. Which YOU took personally. Well good! Take it personally! As for myself, your assumption is wrong, as I didn't take your comment personally. As I would guess, comprehension difficulties? Bummer!
222clocks 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
jillzi7 2 weeks ago
@jillzi7 grow up? Is that some sort of sick irony? You're an obvious imbecile who should not be commenting on any subjet and you're asking me to grow up? The best you can do anywhere, is correct grammar and spelling. Oh, and rip off others words and phrases. You never should have drop out of high school dipshit. You're paying the price for that mistake now.
222clocks 2 weeks ago
@jillzi7 "Internet Plagiarism" way too much of it ("buffoon" & "badboy image")!
222clocks 2 weeks ago
Any real rivalry was created by the press, and apart from that, the only squabbles between the two were a couple of sharp comments from John after the Beatles split, and they were because at that point he was attacking everybody, due to primal scream therapy, huge amounts of drugs and the bad influence of Yoko.
The Beatles were arguably better live at singing and harmonies and they were as tight as the Stones ever have been before 1966, when the grind and noise had made them a bit sloppy.
benwellesley 4 weeks ago
I love Mick and the Rolling Stones but he is talking rubbish here. There was never any rivalry when they met each other and the Beatles helped the Stones by giving them their second hit. As for the Beatles live performances, saying that they did a couple of songs in a couple of special shows it bullshit. The Beatles performed in a stadium way before the Stones and, until they had been playing with audiences who stopped them from hearing themselves, they were just as good live as the Stones.
benwellesley 4 weeks ago
The Beatles and Stones are from the same coin heads or tales u choose
beah023 4 weeks ago
His moves seem nothing special
Slip1insider 1 month ago
Micks lips were getting in the way of his thoughts. Get over it Mick---as good as the The Stones were, you guys were nowhere near the writers the Beatles were. Face it--the world knows it. You owe your career to them-- you bastard. The melodies the Beatles produced with their chords was second to NONE. Legendary guitarist Jimi Hendrix couldn't stand you either and said you were "a faggot". I think he was right, ya know.
crownedful 1 month ago
Mick is every bit as stupid as he looks
zebratangozebra 1 month ago
This bastard owes his career to the Beatles...he should their cocks publicly every chance he gets
mrjamesgrimes 1 month ago
Jagger idolized john lennon
its alll good
lookylooky2006 1 month ago
-tors realise that the early to mid Beatles were about FUCKING MELODIES- not lyrics. In the early 60s people didn't want social commentary they just wanted to dance to the bastard.
flimbambo 1 month ago
RollingOrmond and others (including Dylan) seem to forget that when the Beatles started to record, no one was looking for world- changing lyrics. At that time a kind of trivial lyricism was sufficient, and the talent of the Beatles is that their early stuff sounds like it was almost like a stream of consciousness and wrote itself.
Once again we have someone who thinks putting something like 'Love Me Do' against 'Sympathy For The Devil' is a fair comparison- bullshit. When will Beatles detract
flimbambo 1 month ago
simple...Beatles best band on vinyl. Stones best band on stage.
222clocks 1 month ago
@222clocks Stones better live? I think you'd have to conclude that because they played so many more live shows than the Beatles. But have you heard the Beatles in '66 in Japan? Listen to how tight they are! (And the audience isn't screaming, for once.) They were incredible--"Paperback Writer," for example. The Stones could not possibly top that.
charold3 2 weeks ago
@charold3 Yes I have, and it's a great recording! I really like John's Nowhere man on that record. I won't argue the fact that The Beatles had better quality when performing live. You can hear that on the BBC recordings as well. And actually by 1969, The Beatles played more live shows. That's how they developed that tight sound. They did hundreds of shows in Germany and Liverpool compared to the few The Stones did in London.
222clocks 2 weeks ago
@charold3 Cont. My point is, The Beatles audience were mainly thrilled by the songs they were familiar with. Not with the performance. Where as The Stones were a stage band and incorporated sexuality and a badboy image. The Beatles also quit performing before the era of the great sound stage's were introduced. John once said "Our last concerts, we were still using amps the size of peanuts". I feel The Beatles would've been great had they evolved into a touring rock n roll force.
222clocks 2 weeks ago
@222clocks "The Stones were a stage band and incorporated sexuality and a badboy image" That's the only way they could last, because they lacked a lot when it came to playing live (zero musicianship). Watch some more of their live performances, and only 1 out of 30 are more or less decent (with Mick's voice sounding all empty and Keith's mind somewhere else); so of course, they had to replace that with the gimmicks. Think of stage bands like Queen and The Who and you'll get my point. No match.
Imsteppenwolf 2 weeks ago
@222clocks "The Beatles would've been great had they evolved into a touring rock n roll force." So The Beatles weren't great at all, they were just like any other band? I guess "Rubber Soul," "Revolver," "Sgt. Pepper," "Magical Mistery Tour," The Beatles (White Album)," "Let it Be," and "Abbey Road" albums were just an ilusion? What have the Stones (or any other band, for that matter) made in 50 years close to any one of those albums. Even just one song out of those albums would be a whole lot.
Imsteppenwolf 2 weeks ago
@Imsteppenwolf You're missing the point, and need to re-read previous comments. Also, you're obviously biased and you lack the knowledge and understanding worthy of my response. If you don't agree with the critical consensus when it comes to rock and roll, why make an inept attempt refuting? Kind of imbecilic of you yes?
222clocks 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@222clocks "Also, you're obviously biased and you lack the knowledge and understanding worthy of my response." You're describing yourself with that statement; that's why you get so bent out of shape and start insulting. You say I lack knowledge but I named you Beatles albums that any rocker would identify as good; and also gave you facts by suggesting you to watch more live performances by the Stones (Youtube). What points have you proven, other than being what jillzi7 says you are?
Imsteppenwolf 2 weeks ago
@222clocks ..wow, let it go already..no need to cry and throw a fit..its only a utube video for crying out loud..i will ask you one more time to please grow up and stop posting to me
jillzi7 2 weeks ago
@jillzi7 If you want to let it go then just piss off. I was finished with your empty head and what do I get? I have the dolt writing me back! You got to be kidding.
222clocks 2 weeks ago
@Imsteppenwolf ...very well said..this '222clock' should actually be called 'coo coo clock' cause he/she is a nut job..
jillzi7 2 weeks ago
@jillzi7 I'm not going to argue with you about that, because I'm afraid you're right. "let it go already..no need to cry and throw a fit..its only a utube video for crying out loud" I hope somebody gets the point.
Imsteppenwolf 2 weeks ago
@charold3 BTW, I've seen all 4 Beatles perform throughout the 70's & 80's. Just not together. Even Ringo's AllStar band was a joy. But ALL 4 of them on stage...they're basically just singers. As they were when together. I love their sound and feel they are the greatest pop band of all time. Listen to them Daily!! But the Stones? That '72 tour, the '75 tour, and even this last tour...flat out amazing! Peace dude!!
222clocks 2 weeks ago
sorry, revolver...
Peridot120 2 months ago
Soory folks, I love the stones big time, but after sgt. peppers came out, every band icluding the stones, were like um, how in the hell are we gonna top that? But the real truth is that it was reveolver that changed the way music was to be recorded... and yes the stones envied what they did after that album came out. Stating that, the stones wrote some of the best music that I love...
Peridot120 2 months ago
Jagger's basically saying, "Uh, the Beatles were ancient history by the time we did Exile, and all this shit about them being relevant to the public by '72 is just revisionist history made up by people who weren't there forty years later."
RollingOrmond 2 months ago
I'm a huge Beatles fan AND a Rolling Stones fan. My friends and I would be out drinking and, inevitably, we'd start asking all the silly cliche questions like "Ginger or Mary Ann?" and "Beatles or Stones?", and stuff like that. For me, the Stones' last hurrah was "Tattoo You", but even if that's where the line is drawn, that's 18 years of music. Still, what the Beatles did from 1962-1970 is incomparable, to just for an 8-year period, but for a career.
tomada36 2 months ago
The Beatles still, to this day, have the greatest song collection in rock. The Stones come close but no one wrote as many great songs as Beatles. Even in early 1964, the Beatles were writing Songs like Any Time At All, I'll Cry Instead, You Can't Do That, I Wanna Be Your Man, Don't Bother Me, oh the list is endless. The Stones didn't even start writing songs of note until 65 and did not come out with anything resembling a complete album until 66. Love both but c'mon, Beatle bashing is ignorant
Available8063 2 months ago
@Available8063 The beatles when they started writing, they werent innovative, they just played lovey dovey shit. The Rolling Stones wrote Satisfaction about not getting to get love, Under my Thumb about telling a girl to shut the fuck up, Brown sugar about interrcial sex, Jumping Jack Flash is about Child Abuse, there is no band more innovative then The Rolling STones, and you wanna go love songs? Keys to your love, Anybody seen my baby?, Beat Of burden, Fool to cry.
Colin2k41 2 months ago
@Colin2k41 When the Beatles started the Stones were not even in existence. Yes, Please, Please Me (the album) and the singles from 63 were love pop with a bit of the energy of rock and roll. But the signs were already there (Please, Please Me the song, I Saw Her Standing There, great rock and roll covers). The rest pure crap. But the Stones were doing nothing but covering r and b numbers and that gets old real fast. And keep the comparisons to the years both bands were active.
Available8063 2 months ago
@Colin2k41 comparing laye 70s Stones to 60s era Beatles is goofy. The fact is The Stones had the Beatles trying to imitate them on just a few occasions (Day Tripper, for example). The one contemporary innovative than the Beatles was Dylan (and to a certain extent Ray Davies). All three were way ahead of the Stones in the writing department until 65 when Jagger and Richards took off and thankfully (under the Beatles influence) expanded their musical scope.
Available8063 2 months ago
@Available8063 The Stones could've written empty pop songs as early as '64, but, like Renaissance artists who copied masters until they were ready, they did blues and soul covers until they could deliver masterpieces like Satisfaction, Paint It Black, Sympathy, Gimme Shelter, etc., songs which make the Beatles lyrics sound lukewarm and dull.
RollingOrmond 2 months ago
@Colin2k41 Finally, listen to when each Beatles song was released, listen to when the Stones follow up. Yes, the Stones are incredible from 65-68 as singles writers. And like I said, a couple of times they outdid the Beatles, but c'mon, Tomorrow Never Knows, Norweigian Wood, Love You To, I'm Only Sleeping, Rain, no The Beatles more than proved their worth. Sorry for some of the spelling, wrote these quickly
Available8063 2 months ago
I personally like the Stones, but if the truth be known, Abba, Queen & Led Zeppelin have sold more records than the Stones. (None of which I like better than the Stones).
WileERobby 3 months ago
@WileERobby The more generic and mindless it is, the better it sells. Why the Stones get outsold by many, many artists.
steveconn 3 months ago
Trying to compare any other band with The Beatles is a totally futile exercise.
76juno 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the stones did not even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the stones did not even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the stones didn even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
the stones didn even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
@RiickJamesBiitch TOTAL BULLSHIT. The Stones wrote TONS of originals. And they never could be as big as the family friendly happy meals of pop, the Beatles. That's their edge.
steveconn 4 months ago
@steveconn sure they did, flops.. they wrote about 1-3 songs of their top20 hits.. cmon man
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
@RiickJamesBiitch Are you on Crack?
Satisfaction, Get Off of My Cloud, Paint It Black, Ruby Tuesday, Honky Tonk Women, Brown Sugar, Angie, Miss You - all #1s, all written by Jagger/Richards.
Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown, Tumblin' Dice, It's Only Rock N' Roll, Fool To Cry, Start Me up, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Beast of Burden, Waiting On A Friend - all top twenty hits, all written by Jagger/Richards. Documented fact.
steveconn 4 months ago
@RiickJamesBiitch what u on about, i dont care about #1's, im talking about their greatest hits
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
@RiickJamesBiitch #1s = their greatest hits, you fucking moron.
steveconn 3 months ago
@steveconn I don't understand why there should be a divide between liking The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.
To say that they wrote 'family friendly happy meals of pop' is silly. They gave The Rolling Stones, 'I wanna be your man', which Mick Jagger has said broke the band in England.
watch?v=0rolz1VasS4
petegiant 3 months ago
@petegiant The Stones took the song, another mild pop number, and blues it up into a more raw song. Just a listen to their catalogue shows the Beatles wrote lightweight boyband material until they discovered Dylan and drugs (then it became smug, overproduced candy, but that's another story...)
steveconn 3 months ago
@steveconn
watch?v=0rolz1VasS4
petegiant 3 months ago
the stones didn even write most of their own music.. they sold x10 less.. i dont see that much originality in them either.. why do they compare them to biggest band ever?
RiickJamesBiitch 4 months ago
you cannot compare the Beatles to any Band...you simply can't ...enough said
blackdenali77 5 months ago
When Brian Jones was with the band, the Stones were my favorite over the Beatles as they were more bluesy and appealed more to my musical sensibilities. After he was kicked out of the band and then died, the Stones lost their direction for me and became more commercial. While I still enjoyed them. I didn't like them as much and thought they were not as sharp. I enjoyed much of the Beatles but they were not as interesting to me as the Stones. Later I found I remember more of their songs.
Diosprometheus 5 months ago
music's not a competition, you are allowed to like both of them
tuna2k10 5 months ago 11
@tuna2k10 this is pretty simple and obvious people. Like who you want. But the Beatles were the most influential,most critically acclaimed, and most popular band ever. So if someone wants to say the Beatles are the greatest band ever its hard to argue with them. I hate it when people want to argue about that simple point. That being said, I like the Stones much much better then the Beatles. But my personally taste doesn't determine who is the greater band. There SIMPLE.
45arther 5 months ago
@45arther It's hard for me to label ANY band as the "greatest band ever". I believe music is very subjective. Also, it's not just the level of talent you have to look at.. it's also the group dynamics, style of music. Most of the bands I like have similar elements but I just can't compare them to one another. Take the Stones and the Beatles. The sounds that they each produce are SO different. I'm sorry, but I just can't give into popular "critical acclaim" when deciding on the quality of a band.
sweetmay73 4 months ago
@tuna2k10 ........i seek pole shift survival group....
sexypoetry 4 days ago
The Stones are definitely more versatile when it comes to writing music and were a touring band who liked to play live and still do because they love it unlike the Beatles who preferred to be more of a studio band.
Findogish 6 months ago
@Findogish They never preferred to be a studio band, there was no point to them gigging because of all the screaming muppets who drowned out their music.
BLAGASPANTS 5 months ago
Personally, I prefer The Rolling Stones. :) The Beatles had very naive, pop songs...
Babagula89 6 months ago
@Babagula89 I agree !!! The Rolling Stones are and were 1000 Better than the Beatles ,Beatles were very great but Stones are Still Much Greatest !!!
stoneroller1 6 months ago
@Babagula89 naive pop songs? haha listen to i am the walrus mate-that will change your mind son
DMarriott81 5 months ago
@DMarriott81 it is a well touted very valid theory that ghost writers were instrumental in latter beatles material...it is very evident to see the severe change in their views their melodies style and musical ability, from just a short time before..and likewise when they split each individual went back to again writing stuff very similar to early beatles quality and not the deeper stuff that came in their later years as a band...perhaps when paul and ringo are gone the truth will emerge.
mrbarleymob 4 months ago
@mrbarleymob
I would suggest that you go to the grassy knoll in Dallas to find out about the ghost writers and if the answer isn't there you might want to drive up to Area 51, they probably have proof there of what you're saying.
As for waiting for them to be gone, there's ony Ringo left because "Paul is dead" already and that was proven in 1969.
BTW, you shouldnt hide behind the name of a great artist like that Mr. Marley
Q5films 4 months ago
Mick Jagger is great, as usual, but the question posed is rather silly.
KellyGreen5555 6 months ago
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were both great bands, fighting over who was 'better' is silly... it's like arguing over who was the better composer Beethoven or Mozart... you really can't compare because they were both legends, but had different styles. The Rolling Stones were much more sexual, raw and bluesy rock and roll than the Beatles, who were more soft sounding with a wide range of experimental jams that pushed the limits of pop music and songwriting in their lyrics.
ProducShuns 7 months ago
Entrevistador a Robert Plant:"?Que piensas de the Beatles?"respuesta:"Demasiado grandes".Entrevistador:"?Y The Stones?"respuesta:"The Great Pretenders".
!O.K.!
judex54 7 months ago
!joder que mal escrito me ha salido!bueno sigo,los Stones siempre me gustaron,hasta Black & Blue,hay dejaron de interesarme.Los he visto en directo en España,pero sin Brian Jones,con un Keith Richard deplorable y Bill Wyman y C.Watts correctos.!que mania con que los Stones eran buenos en directo y los Beatles no!FALSO
judex54 7 months ago
I agree !!! Thanx for saying this.
melfree 7 months ago
I wonder what John Lennon and Brian Jones would say about all this fighting regarding who was the better band. Especially what would John say.
Rustina61 7 months ago
The Beatles we're pop. The Dave Clark Five was pop. The Monkees were pop. All those little jerk me off bands were pop music. The Stones created Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Totally different bands. The Stones however are one of the best live bands in rock and roll history and consistantly hold record attendance figures. The Beatles (even by Paul's admissions, were not a good live band."
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572 Esa opinión es un "Cliché",un lugar común, Paul era el mejor bajo del mundo(lo sigue siendo)John,que decir,un genio con miedo escenico,Harrison suplia el virtuosismo,por la exactitud,la armonia y buen gusto y Ringo...cuanta mierda se le a echado encima.Antes de salir en grabaciones,no habian baterias de Pop-rock,nadie usaba de esa manera los platillos,y lo mejor !los silencios!sabia,cuando un redoble sobraba y tantas novedades(la manta en el bombo,etc)
judex54 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
The Beatles were not a good live band? ROTFLMFAO.
Look at the Stones' "performances" from the 60's and 70's. It's amateur hour.
The Beatles stopped touring in '66. Between '60 and '66 there wasn't a band alive who could touch them.
LiquorWreckedEmGood 7 months ago
@LiquorWreckedEmGood I'm just agreeing with Paul Mcartney who said in his book that they were not a good live band..they were a studio band. Is there a live Beatles album that is so great? The Stones "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out" from the 69' tour is one of the greatest concert albums of all time. Not just my opinion but by critics. Many critics.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
so, not releasing a live album means the Beatles were not a great live band? i see.
and you think ya yas was a great album? o-k. if you say so. the movie is hilarious. mick is a joke.
the beatles were selling out stadiums in '65 around the world. the stones were playing state fairs in the US and small clubs.
LiquorWreckedEmGood 7 months ago
@LiquorWreckedEmGood I don't know..ask Paul Mcartney. He said it to. You really don't know much about 60's rock. In 1965 the Stones released three of their biggest singles Satisfaction, Get Off My Cloud, and The Last Time. I hardly think they were playing little state fairs and small clubs. How can you do that WHEN YOUR THE LARGEST SELLING ROAD ACT OF 1965!
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
wikipedia "rolling stones tour 1965".
lots and lots of AUDITORIUMS and even one GYMNASIUM!!!
but they had a "sold out" tour. LOL.
ain't facts a bitch?
LiquorWreckedEmGood 7 months ago
@LiquorWreckedEmGood According to Wikepedia the Beatles 1965 tour only had 10 dates. I think you should note that the Stones 1965 tour was played in nearly 20 different countries.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
you said: "I hardly think they were playing little state fairs and small clubs."
i replied with the FACT that they played mostly small auditoriums, civic centers, and even one gymnasium.
the Beatles could have sold out stadiums the world over even if they toured 365 days a year for 5 years straight. the fact that they chose not to does not make the stones a better live act. if you believe that then you lack basic logical reasoning skills.
the stones HAD to constantly tour for $.
LiquorWreckedEmGood 7 months ago
@LiquorWreckedEmGood If the Beatles would have toured 5 years for 365 days straight then they would have never been successful. Just think of all the Beatles albums that would never have been made. Besides, they wouldn't go out on the road after 1966. Do you know why? You need to read up on the John Lennon thinks he's Jesus scandal. He had hits on him Beatles a better studio group and Stones are the greatest touring group of all time. bar none.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
you aren't responding to my points. you are illogical. good-bye.
LiquorWreckedEmGood 7 months ago
@dannyd1572 Are you kidding me? Beatles records were being sold in millions when "I want to hold your hand came out". Beatles did not need to tour, and they did not.,
AfroGangsta10 7 months ago
@AfroGangsta10 Yeah, I know. That was the premise of the argument. The Beatles were not a good live band..they never toured.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572 No no no you got it all wrong. They were a great live band. Most people from that decade remembers the shea stadium concert where it was "the loudest thing I have ever heard." The Beatles were a great live band. But yes they could not tour. They did not feel like it. THe stress that was put on them was enormous.
Look at Paul McCartney now. I went to him and it was actually the best concert I have ever been to. And I have been to Pink Floyd(real)Grateful dead. etc.
AfroGangsta10 7 months ago
@AfroGangsta10 They could have been then. I don't know. I've seen Paul interviewed, read his book and like he said and even Keith Richards said...they weren't a great live band. Paul said that it was hitting one chord and the rest was basically just noise. He mentions the Shea stadium concert where John starts cracking up while playing the piano. He said that he was laughing because he didn't have it plugged in. Or maybe because he wasn't playing it at all and just acting like it. LOL
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
ehhh, nooooo, look, lemmy killmister saw both bands live, the beatles during their speed inhaled hambrug red light prostitute bar fight repperbahn days and the stones during their like every other band london club scene days, the beatles impressed him, the stones sucked in comparision, playing 8 hour sets in hamburg beats london, and shea is an awesome show if you think about the beatles not hearing what the others play and they're still tight as hell.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
and john cracked up there because of the noise the audience couldn't hear him anyway, so he had some fun with the kyes that were plugged in, the beatles acted nice, the stones acted tough (actually, oldham formed their image after what the beatles were really like during their hamburg/cavern days, since he worked for epstein back then.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@dannyd1572 Hahahah that's funny. Alright maybe they weren't back then because they didn't really have to be. Most people that bought tickets back in the 60's just wanted to see the Beatles. Let alone hear them play. haha But live act goes to the stones.
AfroGangsta10 7 months ago
@AfroGangsta10 Agreed :)
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd157
dude, the stones werew a force live with mick taylor, only with mick taylor.
with jones they were great, with the early wood they were good, but god fdamn it they suck live for a long time now.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil I know- I've seen them 6 times and it seems like its the same concert over and over. However, each new concert breaks attendance records. Here they are almost 70 (Charlie Watts is 70) and still breaking records....thats pretty good. Mcartney and Ringo could go out and do the same but they won't and thats too bad.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
that#s because bill wyman wasn't worth a damn as a musician and a stone, just like they replaced brian and then mick, the beatles re unique in the way, take one out and it's not the beatles, paul and ringo don't want to do the mike love, the stones still have jagger richards, the beatles lost lennon and then harrison, if jagger or richards continue under the stones name when each of them dies i'll lose about every bot of respect for him.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil Bill Wyman is a great bass player.Did you know he had a more successful solo career with higher charting hits. You can not listen to Miss You or 19th Nervous Breakdown and say that Bill Wyman wasn't good. Miss You is one of the greatest bass lines of all time. The Stones went to hell after Bill Wyman left. Their sound hasn't been the same since. That backing foundation between him and Charlie Watts was unmatched by any other bass-drums combo.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
wyman watts weren't as imaginative and versatile as starr/mccartney, they hadn#t the force and power of entwistle/moon, just like bonham/jones, and they weren't as perectly melodic as what brian wilson used for the beach boys, kaye/blaine.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil Ringo wasn't a good drummer he was just very unique and it fit. If you watch him play you see that he doesn't play like any other drummer. But it works. If you like banging and trying to get in as many notes and beats per second as you can, then yes Moon and Enwhistle were great. I think so anyway. But there is something special about the tightness when Wyman's bass is just a 1/2 second behind Watts and then there is Keith. Its a nice mesh of things.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
ringo not a good drummer, ask about any drummer for his infleunces and he'll mention ringo, Lennon got into abstract lyrics and his acid rock guitar style, McCartney expanded and refined his pop-writing craft, and Harrison got very involved in authentic Indian music and Indian instruments. Ringo, meanwhile, had the challenge of adapting to everyone's style. He always played what was called for. If he had been a rigid drummer, set in his ways, The Beatles would have been in trouble.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil Buddy RIch, Gene Krupa, Alan Gratzer (REO) Charlie Watts, and if your talking about adapting to music styles and adapting to situations/ improvising, then there is now farther to look than John Densmore or Mitch Mitchell. In my opinion Ringo was unique.If you listen to him he never plays the same way twice. He ads fills that are not on time but they work. HIs style is unique. THere is no other drummer like Ringo. Watts boring, good drummers don't need all that flash.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
ringo is always in the exact time he wants to be in and the others want him to be in.
it's just that a lot of beatles songs have time changes and so on, ringo was like a human metroonome, you know who said that, elvis drummer dj fontana.
and densmore pretty much had a style, just like mitchell, ringo really palyed a songwriters version of a song, and ringo isn't flashy AND not boring, while watts os boring but doesnt even overshadow that with flash, it's obvious.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
watts for me is boring, nothing happens in a stones song rythm wise, it's just your averga ebeat over a boring bassline, rocksolid rytjm section, nothing more.
and i'm also no big moon fan, but entwistle was a fucking genius, and moons madness created around that was also uniqe, and wyman, god, i hate that guys playing, he's so unimaginative and average, there's a reason nobody ever talks about them, there's not much to talk about especially comapred to the beatles.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
their name is like their logo, over here in germany you see thousands and thousands of ghetto turk hip hoppers wearing it without even knowing it's the stones logo, i was at 2 paul mccartney concerts 2 years ago, they were perfect, pauls isn't the least bit sloppy like keith or overuser of his voice like jagger (his singing now is a caricature of himself), paul played for 3 straight hours and still he hadn't even played all the hits i wanted to hear.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil Hey Germany- Grandma was a Metzger, so that makes me part German anyway. Yes, the Stones were alot about marketing. But amazingly not as bad as the Beatles. Do you know what the Beatles made the most money on? You wouldn't guess it in a 100 guesses. According to Paul Mcartney is was selling the Apple Logo and name to Macintosh. Sounds unbelievable but its in his book. Said the Beatles still get residuals of it so it must have been a hell of a contract. So that's marketing.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@danny
while the ringo all star band show i was 2 weeks ago (ringo just turned 71 a week ago) was also great, 2 hours, all the early beatles hits sung by ringo, some later tracks and the band was great, edgar winter was awesome (10 minute version o frankenstein), rick derringer played solos like a god) and sang songs like hang on sloopy, just a great atmosphere at both, at the paul concert i stood right before paul for the whole concert, he played bass, lead guitar, mandolin, ukulele and piano.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil I'll admit the Beatles are more of fine tuned musicians. I know their concerts are great. I seen and interviewed Ringo at Farm Aid in Ames, Iowa. The Stones are more of a production concert. I like Paul but I'd rather see lights and action on the stage than someone sitting at a piano or standing onstage with a bass for three hours. Don't get me wrong, I'd pay if he was in a 100 mile radius, but I'd take the Stones when it came to a concert.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
while the beatles, jesus, from the hard rocking fast bassline of i saw her standing there trough the brilliance of day tripper, and then paperback writer and rain, and ringo, well, a unique drummer, unreplacable unlike watts, watss was nothing special, the kinks drummer could have easily replaced him, pretty basic styles, you never hear that''jazz influence'' stones fans want to tell you about because the stones rythm tracks are so average.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil My favorite bass lines of Pauls have to be Helter Skelter, Don't Let Me Down, and of course Come Together. But Don't Let Me Down...a very underrated song, has a magnificent bass line.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
yeah, great song, great bassline, and i've got a feeling, george's guitar is pure awesome, also pual on something, the master of melodic, the spare, hard rocking fender jazz bass notes on yer blues, the bassrun at the end of monkey, the whole pepper album is a giant bass symphony, on i want you he puts even john paul jones to a shame, best moment right after the last vocal part before the noise kicks in, that wouwouWOUAMMM.
Oaul is the best.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil If your talking about the same Yer Blues as I am, that was the supergroup called The Dirty Mac, which was Eric Clapton, Mitch Mitchell, Lennon and Keith Richards on bass. Good song tho. Out of all of the Beatles work Abbey Road is my favorite. Golden Slumbers is way, way too short. The first part of that song could of went on for another 5 minutes before going into "your gonna carry that weight" part. Abbey Road as a whole is a materpeice- just like Exile On Main St.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
we agree on abbey road, but find exile on main street massively overrated, it goes on for too long, almost no song sticks out in my mind from it, aftermath is probably my fave by them.
yer blues was a track on the while album, with paul on jazz fender bass (a rarity), john on rytjm, george on lead (that solo is a screaming blues kller) and ringo on drums, the stones rock circus version is also great, but i prefer the white album cut.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil "Happy" or "Tumblin Dice" great songs from Exile. Exile was one of the first Sex, Drugs, and Rock and Roll albums. You have to admit, before the Stones it was all pop bands composed of fine dressed cookie cutter bands. The Stones were the first to combine the pleasures of Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. Haven't heard the White Album version of that. I can honestly say I was never a White Album fan. Kind of like Beggars Banquet..to me just boring.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
i LOVE the white album, so many genres, som any great songs, from ska to heavy metal, a variety never rivaled by any other band, more genres on one album than the stones had in 50 years.
like i told you, the stones early bad boy image was as manufactured as the beatles nice image, oldham worked for epstein so he knew exactly how the beatles behaved during the hamburg years and after that he modeled the stones.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil I would have to say Exile On Main Street was a more diverse album. You had soca, rock, country, blues, bar room boogie, gospel, and a couple songs that don't fit any category. An album that was no well recieved but is now getting attention as a masterpeice. Personally for me I'd have to say the first Rock and Roll album that included sex, drugs, and rock and roll would be Let It Bleed. Whats yours?
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
elvis presley debut, hearbreak hotel, more sex couldn't go on the radio in 56, jerry lee lewis(the man sang about balls of fire), probably his 63 live album live at the star club, james brown live at the apollo, but the first in 60s sytle about sex drugs and so on was the velvet undergrounds debut, it deals with drug abuse, prostitution, sadism and masochism and sexual deviancy, pretty fucking daring.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil No..SEx Drugs Rock and Roll as we know them. Heart Break Hotel had no drugs in it, neither did Great Balls of Fire, I mean DIrty, Raunchy, Dark. Things like Stray Cat Blues, Midnight Rambler, Monkey Man, Sympathy For The Devil, Brown Sugar. I'm not talking about the sexually charged songs of Evlis, Jerry lee, and Brwon. While they were sexual..very sexual, they were not the dark raunchy drug fueld sex mixed with rock and roll. The Stones invented that.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572
sympathy for the devil has notihng to do with sex, drugs, or rock'n'roll, it#s actually a quite intelligent lyrics for the stones, speaking from the perespective of the devil after reading a book whose name i forgot.
Velvet Underground were dirtier and raunchier than the stones ever were, and i don't even like them.
also the stooges debut which came out some montsh before bleed, i wanny be your dog.
the stones aren't dark.
OropherThranduil 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil Not dark? Seriously? Paint It Black, Midnight Rambler, Sympathy, Dancing WIth Mr. D, Too Much Blood, I Just Wanna See His Face, Thru And Thru, Heartbreaker, Gimmee Shelter, Sway (specifically about living a demon life), Sister Morphine. I'd say those songs are pretty dark songs.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@OropherThranduil
"the stones aren't dark." Man, you just don't have a clue when it comes to The Rolling Stones.
KellyGreen5555 6 months ago
@KellyGreen5555
Happiness is a warm Gun, that's Dark.
and yeah, since 95 % of the stones music is only good, and nothing better, why should i care for those 95 %?
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil
With all due respect, you are a blinkered idiot.
KellyGreen5555 6 months ago
@KellyGreen5555
no, but the stones are just so fucking overrated, especially as a live band they haven't played anything worth since the 80s, and jee, they never again reached the heights taylor put them to.
just like in the studio, no greatness since 81.
they're dying a slow death.
and after 50 years they're still not reven close to rival the beatles in anything, not even sales, despite having 10 times as much official albums as the beatles have.
OropherThranduil 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil you are right man!
alessmacri 6 months ago
@OropherThranduil ; Their tours were MASSIVE, each to their own, different people have different tastes!
I personally like both bands and certainly believe The Stones are NOT overated....their tours prove that!
s13hgp 6 months ago
I love the Stones but the Beatles always led the 60s. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
BeatlesForever22 8 months ago
@BeatlesForever22 Stones owned the 70s :)
dannyd1572 7 months ago
As much as I like the stones the Beatles are way better in every way such as song writing, the stones are just the "cool" band
jamestarx 8 months ago
Oh, the poor loves. The crowds were too loud! Kinda forces my point, doesnt it? The Beatles were not a rock band. As for dissing the Stones for their reation at Altamont, well matey, you stand on a small stage in front of around half a million people and see how you react! At least the Stones had the balls to carry on. Unlike the chicken shit Beatles (BTW, thats a direct quote from Playboy's 1978 review of music).CCR did indeed outsell both bands, though i concede it might have been 1969 only.
corgi37 8 months ago
That's all very good and well. I'm talking quality, not quantity. Any idiot can sell records, just ask Justin Bieber fans. Grandmothers liked the Beatles. Not so the Stones (though its different now, of course - lol). The Beatles were a pop act in my book. The Stones a rock act. When the Beatles tried to "get tough" after dressing up in satin suits in 67, they looked fake. BTW, Creedence Clearwater actually outsold both bands 2 - 1 from 68-70. And The Stones invented touring!
corgi37 9 months ago
@corgi37 I love how you throw in fake facts. The Rollings Stones were part of pop culture, Although their genre was rock. The Beatles as a genre in their early years were definitely pop rock, Which there is nothing wrong with. But in their later years 1965+ they were definitely rock in pop culture. And no, CCR never out sold both bands between 68-70. Don't be silly, Look at the record sales then come back to me. And the beatles stopped playing live is because the crowds were too loud.
MunisAwesome 8 months ago
The Stones over took the Beatles way back in 68 with Beggars Banquet. No one could touch the Stones after that. Actually, just prior to that with the release of Jumping Jack Flash in May of 68. The Stones sped past all the others.
corgi37 9 months ago
@corgi37 Wrong. The Stones never really surpassed The Beatles. Even to this day The Beatles still have more number one hits than ANY OTHER BAND in history with 27. The Beatles are still to this day The Most Successful Musical Act of All Time. The band/musicians that marked the era of the 60's... As any music credict will tell you, are The Beatles. With more albums sold than any other artist, more number one hits than any band in history, You're comment about Baggars Banquet is really not true.
Space9Man 9 months ago 3
@Space9Man Largest selling road act of all time- The Rolling Stones. Each new tour breaks records.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572 Hahahaha is that it? My list goes on and on and all you got is that haha. I'll add one more Yesterday is the most covered song in history with over 3,000 covers. Heres another Srgt. Pepper is ranked the best album of all time by Rolling Stone magazine and countless credicts and musicians. Heres another The Beatles gave a hit to The Rolling Stones "I Wanna Be Your Man" The Beatles never took any hits from the Stones. So fuck the road Beatles own it all.
Space9Man 7 months ago
@Space9Man Who brought the hippie epic to London? WHo created that style? Sure wasn't anyone in the Beatles. You should read up on Brian Jones. You should also read up on all the different musical instruments he introduced the Beatles to and the songs he played on of theirs without being credited. You really need to read Paul Mcartney's book to read his appreciation for the Stones, especially Brian Jones.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
@dannyd1572 YOU need to listen in to Kieth Richards and Mick Jagger's interviews where they are asked about The Beatles. Mick and Keith both admit how The Beatles paved the way for them and all other British acts to make it big globally and break out of their shells. Keith even personally has admitted to being a fan of The Beatles' music. The Beatles Helter Skelter, Ticket To Ride and Revolution are some of the 1st if not the 1st introductions to what would become Heavy Metal music.
Space9Man 7 months ago
@Space9Man Oh I have listened and you are correct. Keith has said his favorite Beatles song was "Please Please Me" which to me seems strange. He said the Beatles opened the door and paved the way for all the other bands to come in, especially America. I've always stated Helter Skelter was the first HEavy Metal song. FUnny how you never hear Metal fans sight the Beatles as the inventors of Heavy Metal...LOL They would never admit it. Satisfaction was also a early version Heavy Metal sound.
dannyd1572 7 months ago
What people seem to forget is that a day after the Beatles stopped touring, the proper amps were invented. In 1965 when Beatles played Shea, they had a few 100W amps only for 56k people.
radekbayek 10 months ago
beatles, stones..all satanists anyway
YouDonteverhavetodie 10 months ago
Comment removed
rsmaniac100 8 months ago
@rsmaniac100 I agree totally, but go tell them that.
YouDonteverhavetodie 8 months ago
I only can't listen to the beatles, they sound like girls and its really boring, but i love their songs when they are covered by another band!
ajaxrulzz 11 months ago
@ajaxrulzz : its bcoz you always listen cover songs...you like fake..you cant like pure music......
abhikoolblue 11 months ago
@abhikoolblue Relax -.-
ajaxrulzz 10 months ago
@ajaxrulzz Spinner
Pittermon1969 9 months ago
@ajaxrulzz
What a weird comment! I really can't make out what you're saying at all!
ktrfeb23 10 months ago
The Beatles and The Stones are two different things It's bad to compare them unfair to both bands
ninelivecat 1 year ago 2
@sc4433a Because you seem to have difficulties writing anything of substance. "the beatles, rolling stones -- only a fool would try to say one is better then the other." - That's still a statement without any proof. You still look fucking brainless to me.
LoneJedi 1 year ago
@sc4433a When you try to attack others at least write something with a point. Everyone can shout out messages such as," sc4433a is such a mother fucking brainless youtube asshole."
LoneJedi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Beatles > The Rolling Stones
menoziinrevoltado 1 year ago
The Beatles are 3000% more talented than The Stones.
LoneJedi 1 year ago
@LoneJedi "the candle that burns half as bright burns twice as long" 40+ yrs of stones material vs 6 yrs of beatles? who's gonna have more hits? as far as players, keith's a better guitarist than george or john, mick's harmonica playing is revered, and charlie's near perfect metre is way better than ringo's (could ringo ever play jazz?)
lukafafrenz 1 year ago
@lukafafrenz 6 years of Beatles shone much brighter than 40+ years of Stones. Beatles had 17 UK no.1 and 20 US no.1 hits, while Stones had ONLY 8 no.1 hits IN 40+ YEARS. Mick & Keith can never write music as beatuiful, innovative and influential as Lennon/McCartney's. BTW I don't see how Keith's a better guitarist than George. Did you mention Paul's melodic bassline?
LoneJedi 1 year ago 3
@LoneJedi did you mention george martin? or the press & marketing team at columbia records, u.s.a.? there's a lot that you don't see, or hear for that matter -- and it looks like i'm not the only one to call you on it -- i think you may as well lose "oneJedi", and just go with the uppercase "L"
lukafafrenz 1 year ago
both the Rolling Stones and The Beatles are great, influential bands, but very very different styles of music, goals, and personalities. The Beatles weren't about performing, playing live and doing standard rock and roll, they were more into psychedelic and being creative in the studio, which works perfectly for them. The Stones touring and hard rocking heavy drugs kinda thing was fine for them, but wouldn't work for The Beatles. The Stones only outlasted The Beatles as far as playing live
QueenBeatlesWings 1 year ago 2
those two comments are idiotic...
flerlysqf3 1 year ago
they may have outlasted the beatles but there music sure didnt!
pll741 1 year ago 2