The Beatles

by 99 replies
117
The next time I hear somebody say The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock-n-roll band ever, I think I'm gonna puke.

The Rolling Stones - Roll Over Beethoven (1963) - YouTube
The Beatles - Roll Over Beethoven - YouTube
#off topic forum
  • The Beatles - Long Tall Sally - YouTube
    The Beatles - "Rock and Roll Music" - YouTube
  • I WANNA BE YOUR MAN - The Rolling Stones (subtitulado) - YouTube
    Beatles - I Wanna Be Your Man - YouTube
  • hey Icombs, remove the s from the https

    I love the Beatles as well. Always liked them more than the Stones. Actually, I always liked Aerosmith more than the Stones as well.
    The Beatles - "Rock and Roll Music" - YouTube
    • [2] replies
    • Don't know what happened to my html.

      But, yeah.
      If nothing else, just check out how many times the Stones, (like everybody else), copied what The Beatles were doing.

      I've been in discussions with people on the subject and their finally argument always seems to be,
      "Well, I don't think The Beatles were really a rock-n-roll band". :confused: :p
    • I've always preferred The Who over The Stones and The Beatles.
      • [1] reply
  • The Beatles were and still are my all time favorites. Steely Dan is in second place. Essentially, two studio bands. I like the Stones but doubt they'd even make it into my top 10.

    • [2] replies
  • beatles then the kinks closely followed by dave clark five

    soft spot for early stones, up to get off my cloud stuff
    • [1] reply
    • Glad All Over was one of the first albums I bought.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • This band is loved by everyone from over the world. Their songs are marked not only by the sound, but by what you feel when you hear the music.
  • If it makes you feel any better, I've never cared much for the stones. They've made about 4 or 5 songs I tolerate. If they come on the radio I almost always change stations.
    • [1] reply
    • In truth, the Stones are a rock band while the Beatles are a pop band. Yes, the
      Beatles have had some "rock" songs in their day, but their music is more pop
      oriented than rock oriented. Sure, if you want to use the generic term "rock
      band" I guess they'd fit, but it isn't that simple.

      The Stones were the bad boys of rock. That image was so stereotyped that
      they even parodies it in their song "It's Only Rock 'N' Roll".

      The Beatles music was more diverse, but they were not rockers. The Stones
      were. That's the difference.

      Now, greatest "rock 'n' roll" band of all time? You can argue that, as rockers go,
      the following bands are as good if not better.

      The Who
      The Doors
      Aerosmith
      Led Zep

      They certainly rock just as hard as the Stones and, especially in the case of
      The Who, have their own antics to parade around. Watch the Who parody on
      WKRP In Cincinnati with them smashing up their hotel room and you'll get how
      stereotyped that band is as well.

      As far as "all around" musicality goes, the Beatles are nowhere near the top
      of the food chain if you just want to consider 'technical" greatness. Yes,
      Paul wrote some very catchy tunes over the years (Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye)
      etc., but on a technical level, the Beatles music doesn't come close to bands
      like...

      Emerson Lake & Palmer
      Renaissance
      Electric Light Orchestra (the early years)
      Genesis (the early years)

      Listen to Karn Evil 9, Can You Understand, Wild West Hero and Supper's Ready
      and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

      The thing with the Beatles, if you grew up during that era like I did, was that
      you grew up as a starry eyed kid and idolized these guys. Their songs were
      the greatest. Hey Jude was the best song ever.

      But as time goes on, if you're objective and honest about the whole Beatles
      thing, they were good but certainly not the best at any one thing. George
      Harrison himself said in an interview, "I don't get it. We're not that great of
      musicians." And he was right. Ringo certainly wasn't the most "skillful"
      drummer in the world and I could name a half dozen bass and guitar players
      better than Paul, John and George. Anybody can.

      But the Beatles had an intangible that you just can't quantify. For one thing,
      they were the beginning of the British Revolution, so they were unique. Paul
      was cute as hell, so the girls went nuts over him. They didn't even have to
      play to be loved by half the world's population. Their early songs, to be quite
      honest, were so-so at best. But then Paul evolved as a songwriter and the
      group, for its time, was on its way up.

      Today? I doubt they'd even get airplay had they started out with the same
      kind of music that they played in 1963. Plus, competition today is off the
      charts. It wasn't like that back in the early 60s.

      In short, the Beatles had everything fall right for them. They were in the
      right place at the right time and had just the right "unique" sound to make
      a splash.

      If it sounds like I'm knocking the Beatles, I'm not. But almost 50 years later,
      I recognize them for what they actually were...a very good musical band that
      had charisma and one of the best "pop" writers we've ever seen in Paul
      McCartney.

      But think about it. The group only lasted 6 more years after their big break.
      They actually lasted longer individually than they did as a group. And some of
      their songs, individually, were just as good, if not better, than some of the
      stuff they did as the Beatles. Or have you never really "objectively" listened
      to "The White Album?" Honestly, most of it was God awful. Or do you really
      think "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" is great music?

      I rarely listen to Beatles music anymore, though I will still listen to Renaissance,
      ELP, ELO, and even early Genesis. I still will never forget the first time I heard
      "Watcher of the Skies" and "Supper's Ready" from Foxtrot.

      Yes, I've taken off the rose colored glasses concerning the Fab 4. There are
      still a good 10 to 20 of their songs that will be some of my favorites of all
      time. But as groups go, just one of so many good ones and hardly the greatest
      "rock" band of all time depending on what you're using as your criteria.

      If it's record sales, yes.

      If it's actual quality of music and/or ability to "rock" with the best, no.

      At least it's arguable anyway.
      • [2] replies
  • "At least it's arguable anyway."

    That is for sure.

    To me we are comparing apples to oranges, for as Kurt says, the Beatles were a prock-n-roll band to start,while The Rolling Stones ( they shortened to The Stones later) wanted to be more bluesly and gutsy. Some of the Bands mentioned already I would compare to the early Beatles like the Dave Clark Fice, while The Stones would have been in thje same style as The Animals.
  • i got lots more beatles music than stones music so the beatles must be better
  • I always thought the Beatles were creative and imaginative and used it to its fullest. The Stones meanwhile would beat their heads against the wall to get your attention. I'm not knocking the Stones, but I agree that their were in two different classes.
  • Fund this video that says what I did about this being the last time the Beatles played together live.
    It also shows they still were rock-n-roll.
    Don't Let Me Down - The Beatles at the rooftop! 720p - YouTube
    • [1] reply
    • Can't remember the full story but, as I recall, they were almost arrested for creating a public disturbance during that performance.
      • [1] reply
  • I saw a video of the Dave Clark 5 the other day and have often wondered, why Dave Clark? He was just the drummer. Did he own the PA system or something?
    • [1] reply
    • Why Gene Krupa's orchestra or The Buddy Rich orchestra. Why was the Band originally called Levon Helm and the Hawks?
      Take the drums out of any rock band and see what you end up with.
      • [1] reply
  • The example here of the rolling stones lacks quality. The playing isn't as good. It is slower. Their singing isn't as good.

    With the beatles, shes leaving home, dear prudence, don't let me down? NICE! I heard they became a studio band because they had to use some gimics because others were. The rooftop video is good quality, and especially for a lie performance.

    Steve
  • Paul McCartney was just on the Colbert Report a couple of weeks ago. It's amazing that he's still performing at 70+ years old.

    http://www.colbertnation.com/the-col...paul-mccartney
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [1] reply
    • You're right about McCartney.
      But Keith Richards still performing is a F**king MIRACLE!:confused:

      I believe HGH has a lot to do with it.
      • [1] reply
  • Go ahead -

    Insult the Beatles -
    Insult the Stones -
    Even Insult Steve Wags

    However do not insult the Ramones or I will be extremely offended and may be in your face FOR-EVAH!

    Or Jimmi Hendrix - watch your step.

    GABA GABA HAY!

    ONE
    TWO
    THREE
    FOUR
    HAY HO
    LET'S GO!
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I was never much of a Beatles or Stones fan either back then.
    I'd add a couple more to the Mayall and Butterfield list like The Band, Quicksilver Messenger Service, Hawkins, and early Steve Miller.
    I do sort of like the Beatles and Stones now but I'd still rather listen to those others first.
  • [DELETED]
    • [1] reply


    • It's facts. It wasn't a diatribe. I was a big Beatles fans as a teen in the 90's after seeing how they were the prime influence for some of my favourite bands at the time (although it did take me a while to get used to them). Then found their stuff boring and outdated after a while, even the anthologies. Then Youtube came along and provided an alternative catalogue of rare or unheard Beatles material and just hearing this band in the studio pissing about and making up funny songs or ditties but still making masterpieces and doing what they did.


      My point was everyone has their preferences and subjective likes and dislikes in music. Their favourite band or styles. That's their subjective tastes. Might be punks into the Clash and hate the Beatles. And many are stupid enough to claim their pet groups superior just because they like that sound or ethos. But don't try to tell me the Clash's legacy rivals that left by the Beatles.

      By regardless if the Beatles weren't as popular, their musical output would still be unrivaled.

      It's not opinion. It's fact.

      I don't really listen to Beatles stuff much these days. It's relatively outdated because of the sound production and because there is so much other music out there more relevant to today's time.

      I listen more to new remixes and mashups of their stuff. So many people love the Beatles for different reasons, even today's young generation.


      Your post is rather silly and without substance or a decent argument. ''It's all subjective'', seems to be what you are saying. In that case, I could claim Wham were the greatest musical force in history, and still be just as valid.

      Here's some new spins on timeless Beatles stuff that bring the Beatles into today's advances in sound technology. They still sound utterly amazing and fresh.



      The Beatles - Happiness Is A Warm Gun REMIX by Mister Mustard - YouTube
      Gentle Weep (Beatles Dubstep RMX) by LockOut - YouTube
      The Beatles - I'm Only Sleeping REMIX by Mister Mustard - YouTube
      • [1] reply
  • OK. If some clown jumps on a thread and wedged themselves into a discussion with you based on some pointless, easily rebuked attempt at argument, consistently argues like a child back and forth, each time failing to grasp or understand what was being said, and then just trolls you with inane, ridiculous comments, adding nothing of worth or value to the debate, I'm sure you'd feel no desire to entertain them anymore than you have to.


    You're a simple-minded troll who is hijacking this thread. I'd rather discuss the topic with adults like Kurt, who can formulate valid points and make interesting points and observations then someone who can't.

    Nothing thin-skinned. Pointless, sad person.
  • Don't worry. Anyone with any intelligence can see your a pointless moron with no substance or point to your posts and that you're a troll sidetracking this discussion with uninteresting drivel.
  • If John Lennon read this thread, he would piss himself laughing.

    • [ 2 ] Thanks
  • There are people who when you get caught in their slip-stream (like making eye contact with a madmen on a train and then having him not let up till you get off), you aren't going to come out of looking good. These maladjusted people are experts at dragging things to a certain level and keeping their grip on you and keeping you there, making you look retarded by association.

    Which is part of their plan.

    In his own words,


    ''Which is all part of my plan... BWAAAHHAAAAHAAAHAAA!!!!''

    Pointless, damaged people.
    • [1] reply

    • So you think Wagger's is a Psycho? This thread is starting to intrigue me.

      • [1] reply
  • Anyway, we have a troll, a baffled shit stirrer on the sides lines trying to instigate drama, and a man in his 60's who recently sold his treasured ninja turtle toy collection who thinks a doctorate in music makes one a superior musician, 'It's all too much for me to take, The madness that's shining all around you''.
  • You can argue back and forth about the Beatles, Rolling Stones and so on, but those of us who really appreciate the nuances of great music know that the greatest rock song ever is:

    Starship - We built this City HD - YouTube
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • For the clueless observers here,here's what's going on. I sharply opposed an argument Steve gave in this thread, and gave reasoned arguments for my position.


    Only Kurt responded like an intelligent mature person in this thread. The rest are just incapable of that and this thread has descended to a ludicrous spectacle where some absolute clown is open attempting to bait me and troll me, because he disagreed with something I said and completely mistook it.
    • [1] reply
    • Now we're all clueless? Man you are a piece of work.
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
      • [2] replies
  • Well thank you Steve. Interesting read. I understand your points completely. Like Curt's.

    I was just listening to ELO's greatest hits and their sound in the 70's and musicality is much better.

    Dirty Mac, with Clapton on Lead and Mitch on the drums, shows how the Beatles could have improved their sound and musicality.

    I wouldn't argue any of what you said. But for non-trained musicians who started out on early rock and roll with its relative simple chord structures, to 'creating' and inventing all the different pieces of music they did, rather than just improving on it like the prog rockers and other bands did and sound productions values and technology, hasn't been matched.

    Every other band has specialized in a certain narrow range of sound of genre. If Mick Taylor took some of his virtuosity blues rock lead guitar and kept the same kind of standards in different types of music, or all these other great specialists, then they be the best creative musical force in modern history.

    The Beatles sacrificed excellence in any one particular style from the hundreds they experimented in, to be far greater then average as a collective in probably 50-100.

    That variety is a phenomenon in a musical sense, even more so than their popularity and the effect that had in culture terms.

    I'm sorry, but there is no other band even close the Beatles in that regard. Some radiohad fans like to see similarities in evolution of sound and style from 1 album to the next and liken them to the Beatles. But Radiohead, like most bands, have a narrow range that is uniquely them and don't differ all that much. As talented musicians as some say they are.


    Let's name 1 Beatles era.

    Their hamburg days.

    The Beatles - live - I'm Talking About You (1962) - YouTube
    Most bands stay within one era or one genre. The Beatles had many, and invented them themselves for the most part. There isn't anyone near that kind phenomenon.

    And that counts for something.
    • [1] reply
    • That's another aspect of the Beatles phenomena. Their sound progressed
      drastically over the years. That can't be said for many bands. I think, had
      Badfinger been given a chance and didn't have such a heartwrenching story
      and bad management (by the way a Beatles discovery) they might have
      been the next Beatles. In fact, if you listen to Magic Christian Music and
      then listen to Wish You Were Here, you can plainly see how the band evolved.

      I think towards the end you could tell that the Beatles were just getting tired
      of it and burnt out. Of course the string arrangement by Phil Specter on
      "The Long And Winding Road" pissed Paul off to no end. As a romantic
      teenager, I liked it. But as the years went on, I could see where it was a little
      on the melodramatic side. But the song itself was missing something. I can't
      put my finger on it. It just sounds tired. It would turn out to be the Beatles
      last hit single together and it never even made #1, which was unheard of
      for them.

      I think they were smart in calling it quits when they did. I think they needed
      to branch out and go their separate ways. In some ways, I think their music
      individually was as good if not better than the music they did in the later
      years. You might have liked the White Album but I thought it was a terrible
      disappointment, though Martha My Dear is still one of my all time favorite
      Beatles tunes. Even learned to play that one on the piano.

      By the way, people don't give McCartney enough credit as a bassist. His
      bass lines were very catchy, even if he wasn't the most skillful player in the
      world.

      In short, the Beatles were greater than the sum if their parts. They all had
      talent, individually (yes, even Ringo) but together, as I said in my initial post,
      they had something that you couldn't quite put your finger on.

      But let's be honest about a lot of their early popularity.

      1. Catchy tunes
      2. Great looking guys
      3. A dull period musically
      4. Timing

      Maybe part of the reason we've never seen anything like them since is
      because it's just not possible anymore. Certainly over the years there have
      been composers (John/Taupin) and performers (Emerson, Palmer, Wakeman,
      Tout, etc.) who wrote and played just as well if not better than The Beatles.
      But nobody has yet to match their popularity.

      You really have to wonder why if it wasn't just talent that did it.

      Because certainly none of the fab 4 sing as well as Annie Haslam or even
      Gary Puckett for that matter. Now that was a man who could sing.

      Imagine you could erase the Beatles from recorded history and the group
      came out today doing the exact same songs in the exact same chronology.

      Would they become the phenomenon that there were 50 years ago?

      It's at least something to think about.
      • [1] reply
  • Humanity will never wise up. Never be fully rational and level headed and reasoned. Always be prey to human emotions that cloud their judgement.


    Thom was watching this, thumbing up his boys and their nonsense, and then decides to chime in with an insult based on misreading a comment I made.

    Where are the sane, level headed people in this discussion? Where's Kurt gone. People grown up enough and secure enough to hold proper impassioned musical debate without going into complete meltdown?
  • A simple test. If there are bands that are better than the Beatles, have a more diverse range and catalogue of music, done more styles and done them better than the Beatles, then highlight them and show the objective proof and facts.


    I get accused of being arrogant. But some think providing real proof is unnecessary. Because they're a musician themselves and a certain age, their opinion is enough.

    How arrogant is that?

    I'm not the one who thinks me and my opinions are superior.

    I guess some people are just too plain dumb to see what I'm actually saying.
    • [1] reply
    • Well, you see, there are degrees of diversity and we can nit pick that to
      death but where would it get us?

      If you want to be "technical" about all this diversity thing, most classical
      music from the 19th century pretty much all sounded the same to the
      untrained ear. You'd really have to study the styles of each composer to
      hear the subtle differences.

      But that doesn't mean that all classical music from the 19th century was
      the same. Question is, how far down do you want to analyze musical
      structure, because let's face it ... there are only 12 notes in music unless
      you want to include micro-tonal scales that almost nobody uses.

      Hell, even George Harrison got sued for "My Sweet Lord" and lost.

      Early Beatles music can be classified as:

      Love Me Do
      8 Days A Week
      I Want To Hold Your Hand
      She Loves You

      It's all the same stuff. I mean it's not really, but the sound of their early
      works was formula. It had to be in order to sell. That's a different subject
      altogether that I don't even want to get into because then we're opening
      up another can of worms.

      Then you've got their "experimental" stuff that can be classified as:

      I Am The Walrus
      Strawberry Field Forever
      Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds
      A Day In The Life

      And so on. Yeah, it was clever, it was different, it was unusual, it was very
      interesting and all at the same time, very catchy. This is where, at the time,
      the Beatles were really ahead of most other contemporary bands.

      But then their music deteriorated into a parody of the group itself, tired tunes
      or just plain crap that can be classified as:

      Why Don't We Do It In The Road
      You Know My Name Look Up My Number
      Revolution 9
      Dear Prudence

      And the list goes on for quite a while. In fact, by 1969, I couldn't listen to
      this band anymore. They had become either so pretentious or indifferent to
      what they were putting out that I had moved on to other things and actually
      saw their demise around the corner.

      In short, they had a brief few years were they did what most groups take
      a lifetime to do. And that's quite an accomplishment in itself.

      But in truth, Elton John has had a much better career quality wise as far as
      length of time doing it. Sure, he proved he was nothing without Bernie (God
      his songs were terrible during that period) but with him, there was nobody
      like Elton John. Nobody.

      And the real test of time is this. If I were to sit down and objectively list
      my 100 favorite songs of all time (something incredibly difficult to do) I
      seriously doubt that The Beatles would have more than one or two in that
      top 100.

      And this is coming from somebody who was a fan, who bought the stupid
      Beatles dolls with the rubber heads that you pushed in and their hair popped
      up.

      By the way, my favorite Beatles songs

      Hello Goodbye
      Eleanor Rigby
      Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight
      Martha My Dear
      You're Going To Lose That Girl

      I also like the song he wrote for Mary Hopkin "Goodbye" which wasn't a big
      hit.

      Lots of other songs I liked but when I look at the list of absolute garbage
      that they spit out, they made me realize that they're mortal.
      • [1] reply
  • Ok, kids! That's enough!
    I started this thread and MikeAmbrosio and Underground have devolved it into a childish,
    personal feud.
    How petty and pretentious are you guys to get this angry over ******* music?
    For the most part music is purely subjective.
    (And, by the way, for anybody in this forum to argue music with Waggenheim is foolishness).

    This thread is about whether The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones.
    Answer the question with your opinion and don't get angry because somebody 'offends your sensitivity' you by disagreeing.But before you do, dry your eyes and go sit in the corner quietly for 10 minutes.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
    • [2] replies

    • Actually I'm not angry at all. Just scratching my head at his responses to almost every post of anyone. Plus like I said - I got bored.

      I apologize to you on this. I will go and delete all my posts. Fun time is over anyway.
    • This is what I hate most when people do what Mike did and go on a thread with the sol intention to drag you down to a certain level and keep you there.

      Most people not involved don't care enough to find out what is behind it, and therefore class the two as the same.

      I had to stoop to his level to shut him and his nonsense up. I would have much preferred to skip all the BS and gotten straight to Steve's last interesting replies, and its a subject that fascinates me.

      I wish I didn't go in all guns blazing on Steve to try to get lively debate going and was less full on, as I know I invited those reactions.

      But no, I'm not in the same category as Mike. I didn't come on this thread solely to give someone grief and try to piss them off. I have contributed stuff around this discussion.

      I get equally pissed of when people won't even try to gage what's what on a thread. It's like someone getting punched in the face out of nowhere and all the people see are the fight and both get cast as violent thugs, when one was just defending themselves against someone given them shit.
      • [1] reply
  • Actually, why don't you just leave this thread and go start your "I Hate MikeAmbrosio" and "I Hate Underground" threads.
    • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I believe this page will open some eyes about Ringo.
    And, I believe, you could plug in any of the other Beatles and their respective instruments.

    I've always been impressed with the drums in "A Day In The Life" so
    I particularly like this quote;

    hil ollins, drummer for Genesis -- "I think he's vastly underrated. The drum fills on A Day In The Life are very complex things. You could take a great drummer today and say, 'I want it like that.' They wouldn't know what to do." (interview for The Making of Sgt. Pepper, 1992)

    http://web2.airmail.net/gshultz/drumpage.html
    • [3] replies
    • Ringo wasn't the most technically talented drummer but he had a gift for
      coming up with drum licks that were just right for the song.

      The drum roll he does in revolution is actually an alternating kick and snare
      roll which takes a hell of a lot of coordination. I could never do it quite like
      he could.

      His fills, for the most part, were just plain catchy as hell.

      Yes, he was very underrated in that respect.
    • It took me many years before I appreciated the talent of Ringo.
      One thing that made Ringo unique and some of his fills complex was his playing style. He is naturally left handed but plays a right handed kit. So where a right handed drummer can easily travel around the drums from left to right, it takes some work to go from right to left. Ringo had the opposite problem. Oh heck I'll just let Ringo explain it. Ringo Starr Reveals The Secret Of His Distinctive Rhythm - CONAN on TBS - YouTube
    • From the "Living In The Material World" documentary, Ringo talks about the timing on Here Comes The Sun. I thought it was interesting because unless you play the instrument you don't always understand the difficulty...

      Ringo Star Drumbeat to Here Comes The Sun - YouTube
      I drum and I had trouble with quite a few Ringo fills
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I was a young man going through puberty when the Beatles came to America. A girl I had a huge crush on went on an on about how cute they were and how she would love to "love" them. It took me years to get over that. Somehow in my mind, they were dirty bums who stole my girl. That made it difficult for me to really get into their music. I did later become a big Paul McCartney fan though.
  • Did you know that even Peter Sellers covered a Beatles song?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLEMncv140s

    Hysterical...
    • [1] reply
    • That's great! I've always been a big Peter Sellers fan.
      A bit of trivia: Peter Sellers made a great movie in which Ringo played his son.
      "The Magic Christian".
      The title song, was performed by Badfinger, whose leader was dating Paul's sister.
      BADFINGER - Come And Get It (1970) - YouTube
      • [ 1 ] Thanks
  • I can't remember the circumstance or context but, I once heard someone say, "Ringo isn't even the best drummer in The Beatles." Referring, of course, to Paul.
  • Also, I read a semi-biography about the Beatles in which it stated that, (despite what Pete Best and his father said), The Beatles were on the verge of hitting the Big Time and Ringo was the most sought after drummer in England.
    He was playing a Summer gig at a vacation resort in Northern England so John and Paul drove up and talked him into joining them. Much to the dismay of the leader of the band he was playing for.
Join the discussion

Next Topics on Trending Feed

  • 117

    The Beatles

    The next time I hear somebody say The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock-n-roll band ever, I think I'm gonna puke. The Rolling Stones - Roll Over Beethoven (1963) -...