# Rolling Stones vs Beatles



## Toronado3800 (Dec 8, 2009)

Another thread got me thinking.

Of course the Beatles explosion got folks interested in British Bands.  

My first temptation is to think the Stones were more modern and singing edgier tracks like "Satisfaction" and "Get off of My Cloud" while the Beatles were just beginning to end their Menudo phase with "Help" and "Ticket to Ride" (Not a bad song I might ad).

Even by 67's Sgt Pepper the Stones struck harder with Sympathy For the Devil, Street Fighting Man, Jigsaw Puzzle, Salt of the Earth, and the favorite of statuary rapists everywhere, Stray Cat Blues from Beggars Banquet.


----------



## Valerie (Dec 8, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgfsTAk0oP4[/ame]


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 8, 2009)

A decent tune.  A real decent one which holds up well.

I think it isn't a leader in any way.  Besides being released after the before mentioned Stones tunes it's after Steppenwolf's The Pusher.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 8, 2009)

The Beatles made more great music in their time together than the Stones have in their careers.


----------



## Intense (Dec 8, 2009)

Beatles by far.


----------



## Valerie (Dec 8, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GtHTwoaQtI&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Intense (Dec 8, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrx_Dc-jbOo&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

The Rolling Stones suck out loud. I can't fucking stand them. They were no talent hacks and the only reason they're not all living in refrigerator boxes is that the music industry made them famous and I heard "Satisfaction" and "Get Off My Cloud" EVERY FUCKING HOURRRRRRRRRRRRRRR when I was growing up!

I don't know how people even mention the Stones and the Beatles together; its so fucking sick. It's like comparing I don't know what, the Stones owe their career to Payola. Frank Zappa should get all the Rolling Stones airtime


----------



## Si modo (Dec 8, 2009)

While I appreciate all that the Beatles did, I like their psychedelic and rock stuff the best.  The other stuff I call bubblegum Beatles.

I like almost all of the Stones, but they cannot compare in the psychedelic department, IMO.  The Stones are definitely more influenced by American blues, and I like the blues.

Eh, hard call - there's good about both.


----------



## del (Dec 8, 2009)

smoke this.
you'll conserve all winter.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

del said:


> smoke this.
> you'll conserve all winter.



Nothing is what I want


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

Can't rep ya again Del but you got one coming your way


----------



## del (Dec 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Can't rep ya again Del but you got one coming your way



oh, bobby, i'm sorry you have a head shaped like a potato.
i really am.


----------



## del (Dec 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > smoke this.
> ...



a true zen saying


----------



## Valerie (Dec 8, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faEEro38pEA&feature=PlayList&p=C55FAB96ACF2241A&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2[/ame]


----------



## Intense (Dec 8, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XplOk3Do9Gg&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

Why do people compare the Beatles with the Stones? Cause they're both British? Might as well compare the Beatles with John Clesse

Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery, White Album and Abbey Road I mean JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!!

They pushed the boundaries of music like no other band ever did.  It's like comparing Einstein with one of the Global Warming Poseurs

Billy was a Mountain.


----------



## del (Dec 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why do people compare the Beatles with the Stones? Cause they're both British? Might as well compare the Beatles with John Clesse
> 
> Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery, White Album and Abbey Road I mean JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!!
> 
> ...



i prefer the beatles and the kinks to the stones.

shake up the pale dry ginger ale.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 8, 2009)

del said:


> i prefer the beatles and the kinks to the stones.
> 
> shake up the pale dry ginger ale.



The Kinks really got you huh? All day and all of the night, till the end of the day, ev'rybody's gonna be happy listening to them!


----------



## Big Black Dog (Dec 8, 2009)

The Beatles were ok.  The Stones were so-so.  While it's true that the Beatles did a lot to sway the music industry, I don't consider them the greatest band that ever lived.  I think the Bee Gees did as much for the music industry as the Beatles did.  Even with that said, the Bee Gees weren't the best band going.  Every group added a little.  Nobody had the market on the music world.  All the bands have added a little flavor to the soup.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

del said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people compare the Beatles with the Stones? Cause they're both British? Might as well compare the Beatles with John Clesse
> ...



The zipper from the Black Lagoon


----------



## del (Dec 8, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i prefer the beatles and the kinks to the stones.
> ...



i'm a dedicated follower of fashion.


----------



## Lumpy 1 (Dec 8, 2009)

I'd have to go with the Beatles, all the transitions they went through.


----------



## del (Dec 8, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



that's the pedestrian beat.

you don't dance to that beat.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 8, 2009)

del said:


> i'm a dedicated follower of fashion.



A well respected man indeed! Not like everybody else!


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 8, 2009)

del said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > del said:
> ...



Where the Stumblers gonna go to watch the lights turn blue?


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 9, 2009)

I got to vote Beatles on this one, the Rolling Stones came up with one sound and stayed with it for decades, the Beatles innovated, evolved changed.

The Stones just became a money marketing parody of themselves.

Still, I think John Lennon was a fake cock sucker.


----------



## editec (Dec 9, 2009)

The Stones were some guys who did the kind of music that we all already recognized really damned well.

The Beatles changed the direction music took, invented (or revived) new (or existing) generes of music that expanded what the music of my generation (rock and pop)  was listening to.

Really there's no comparison between these bands.

The Beatles were world class musicians expanding the tastes of my generation AND the WWII generation at the same time, while the Stones were just a great RnR band.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 9, 2009)

I love both groups...they're different, but both are talented

The Beatles had Sir George Martin, the genius behind their polished recordings...

The Stones have raw appeal that is more tribal...

But I still prefer both bands early stuff...


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 9, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i prefer the beatles and the kinks to the stones.
> ...



The Kinks are great...I love Tired of Waiting and Victoria


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2009)

The beatles were the backstreet boys of their time.  Spare me.  Their BEST song is While My Guitar Gently Weeps.  Most of everything else, with a handful of exceptions, is about as profound as the 4th minute of Inagaddadavida.



[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJMnES7WoT4[/ame]


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 9, 2009)

I never care much for either Beatles or Stones.

I never bought either a stones or Beatles album/song.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 9, 2009)

dogbert said:


> the beatles made more great music in their time together than the stones have in their careers.



bingo


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2009)

just because the beatles rode the whole psychedelic daytripper genre like a greasy haired, flannel shit wearer in the 90s doesn't make their music offerings phenomenal.  MAYBE about 30% of their entire music offering is great.  MAYBE.  The rest is laughable tripe that has more in common with Winger than Mozart.

It takes a certain sort of special to jump a shark from a yellow submarine.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 9, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o949iJCVpQk[/ame]


----------



## Intense (Dec 9, 2009)

Bands that influenced me more than the Beatles or the Stones? Santana, Alman Brothers, Marshal Tucker, Quick Silver, Derek And The Dominoes, Credence, Traffic, Pink Floyd, CSNY, Greatful Dead, Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer,most of Philly and Motown. 

The tip of the iceberg. Still I prefer the Beatles over the Stones.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 9, 2009)

Shogun said:


> The beatles were the backstreet boys of their time.  Spare me.  Their BEST song is While My Guitar Gently Weeps.  Most of everything else, with a handful of exceptions, is about as profound as the 4th minute of Inagaddadavida.
> 
> 
> Music is a matter of taste. You have every right to not like the Beatles, but to discount their contribution and impact and then compare them to the BSB or one hit wonders like Iron Butterfly is just plain ignorant...
> ...


----------



## Toronado3800 (Dec 10, 2009)

I say the Beatles were very influential because they drug their early pop fans from their Menudo like days into the late 60's.  Imagine if the New Kids on the Block actually turned into Alice n Chains!

Beatles & Stones Albums are both very hit and miss for me with.  Counting pre-70's Stones, only Beggars Banquet is the only one I can just put in the CD player and pick a 5 songs I like from.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 10, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > The beatles were the backstreet boys of their time.  Spare me.  Their BEST song is While My Guitar Gently Weeps.  Most of everything else, with a handful of exceptions, is about as profound as the 4th minute of Inagaddadavida.
> ...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 10, 2009)

GHEY.  just saying.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kRQ7zQNsx8[/ame]


----------



## Zander (Dec 10, 2009)

The Beatles and Stones were both great acts that stand the test of time. Do I spend all day listening to either? Not usually. But I own everything the Beatles ever did, and most of the Stones repertoire.  Forty years later, they still sound better than most of today's rock bands.  I am going to listen to "Let it Bleed" right now.......


----------



## Zander (Dec 10, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ih7Vy-W-TWU[/ame]


----------



## Zander (Dec 10, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVEdYYMlOJ4&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


----------



## del (Dec 11, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 11, 2009)

Zander said:


> The Beatles and Stones were both great acts that stand the test of time. Do I spend all day listening to either? Not usually. But I own everything the Beatles ever did, and most of the Stones repertoire.  Forty years later, they still sound better than most of today's rock bands.  I am going to listen to "Let it Bleed" right now.......



 Looking at your avatar I did not see this post comming.


----------



## JW Frogen (Dec 11, 2009)

But then I am a pretty superficial asshole.

Avatars people, they matter to me.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2009)

JW Frogen said:


> But then I am a pretty superficial asshole.



But you are very consistent


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 11, 2009)

del said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 11, 2009)

Oh no I don't believe it!






How do you not love a guy who can mock the Beatles at the height of their popularity?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 11, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 11, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Oh no I don't believe it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



agreed.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 12, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


----------



## Gunny (Dec 12, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQx6YJnF7t8[/ame]


----------



## Gunny (Dec 12, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usEcJwrNHAg[/ame]


----------



## Gunny (Dec 12, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpNoniDH6IY[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 13, 2009)

I love the opening guitar riff

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANpCIgAYz1k&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANpCIgAYz1k&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## elvis (Dec 13, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > i prefer the beatles and the kinks to the stones.
> ...



He's not the world's most passionate guy, but when he looked in their eyes, he almost fell for them.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 13, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH6RzbEqkQw&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH6RzbEqkQw&feature=related[/ame]


----------



## Shogun (Dec 13, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

del said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

Seriously, all kidding aside, Zappa was ahead of all of them and influenced all of them but the music industry decided to make him disappear

Freak Out was released in June 1966

"If you were to graphically analyze the different types of directions of all the songs in the Freak Out! album, there's a little something in there for everybody. At least one piece of material is slanted for every type of social orientation within our consumer group, which happens to be six to eighty. Because we got people that like what we do, from kids six years old screaming on us to play 'Wowie Zowie.' Like I meet executives doing this and that, and they say, 'My kid's got the record, and "Wowie Zowie"'s their favorite song."  -- Frank Zappa


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Reread the thread, douchebag.  I've never claimed to be the sole interpreter of what is good music; however, all the beatle worship is just asinine.  They certainly were not gods gift to the fucking treble clef.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> The beatles were the backstreet boys of their time.  Spare me.  Their BEST song is While My Guitar Gently Weeps.  Most of everything else, with a handful of exceptions, is about as profound as the 4th minute of Inagaddadavida.



Unsurprisingly, we agree on the best Beatles song. 

However, I do think they have more than a handful of exception of songs that are profound as the 4th minute of In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Dec 14, 2009)

Neither.

I never got the whole Beatlemania thing.  Really their music was unsophisticated and the Stones were even worse.


----------



## uscitizen (Dec 14, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Seriously, all kidding aside, Zappa was ahead of all of them and influenced all of them but the music industry decided to make him disappear
> 
> Freak Out was released in June 1966
> 
> "If you were to graphically analyze the different types of directions of all the songs in the Freak Out! album, there's a little something in there for everybody. At least one piece of material is slanted for every type of social orientation within our consumer group, which happens to be six to eighty. Because we got people that like what we do, from kids six years old screaming on us to play 'Wowie Zowie.' Like I meet executives doing this and that, and they say, 'My kid's got the record, and "Wowie Zowie"'s their favorite song."  -- Frank Zappa



Is that a real poncho or a Sears poncho?


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Reread the thread, douchebag.  I've never claimed to be the sole interpreter of what is good music; however, all the beatle worship is just asinine.  They certainly were not gods gift to the fucking treble clef.



Really? You're sure doing a good impression of a cement head... 

The Beatles composed and created great music in the opinion of many and their impact on music and on society should not be 'worshiped', but it should not be trashed either...

As I said in the beginning, Music is a matter of taste. You have every right to not like the Beatles, but to discount their contribution and impact and then compare them to the BSB or one hit wonders like Iron Butterfly is just plain ignorant... 

We all have personal musical preferences, but I've learned to respect all artistic talent, even if it is outside my preferences... a few examples:

It's ironic you mentioned the Backstreet Boys; when my 23 year old daughter was a teenager she was a huge BSB fan...she was convinced Nick Carter would someday be my son-in law...So needless to say, I got to listen to a LOT of BSB...and you know what I discovered; they're good. Their vocal harmonies are excellent, and I've heard enough live recordings to know their talent isn't a creation of a studio engineer. 

I had heard songs on the radio over the years by Prince, and had him pegged as a pop lightweight...I was absolutely floored when I heard him play guitar on While My Guitar Gently Weeps at a George Harrison tribute concert... the guy can PLAY...

It is spooky how much George's son is the spitting image of his late father...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifp_SVrlurY"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifp_SVrlurY[/ame]


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

your fleeting opinion of Prince doesn't validate all the beatle worship.  In fact, I DARE you to name, specifically, these "innovations" you keep mentioning.  Go ahead, ya starry eyed little fan boy... I'll wait to continue pointing out how hilarious your liverpool vestments are until after you actually NAME all this "innovation" brought about by the beatles...


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> your fleeting opinion of Prince doesn't validate all the beatle worship.  In fact, I DARE you to name, specifically, these "innovations" you keep mentioning.  Go ahead, ya starry eyed little fan boy... I'll wait to continue pointing out how hilarious your liverpool vestments are until after you actually NAME all this "innovation" brought about by the beatles...



Let me ask you a serious question...were you born an obstinate asshole, raised to be one or do you have undiagnosed ODD? REALLY...

Yea, the Beatles were just a tiny blip on the screen of music and culture...that's why there has been a Beatle song playing somewhere on this planet every minute of every day since the early 1960's...go figure Einstein...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > your fleeting opinion of Prince doesn't validate all the beatle worship.  In fact, I DARE you to name, specifically, these "innovations" you keep mentioning.  Go ahead, ya starry eyed little fan boy... I'll wait to continue pointing out how hilarious your liverpool vestments are until after you actually NAME all this "innovation" brought about by the beatles...
> ...



That sure as FUCK doesn't look like a list of all these "innovations" I keep hearing about.  Do you want to try again or just sit there and cry because I'm batting you around like a cat does a mouse?

come on, dude... LIST these innovations.  I DARE you.  Popularity doesn't mean shit.  Hell, at one time Milli Vanilli was popular.  Whoopty fucking do.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



What's going on here is a mature adult arguing with a snotty nosed brat. The brat is YOU...

Cat & mouse? Really? Then WHY do you keep elevating mice to the level of the BIGGEST cat you moron?

Human being don't listen to music for innovation, they listen to great music...the Beatles composed and created GREAT music... 

Why don't you provide who you believe blows away the Beatles...it should be 'enlightening'


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



No, what is going on here is that I'm calling you out to list the specific "innovations" (your word) that the beatles gave the world and, instead of acting like you have any kind of consistency or fucking musical fortitude beyond name dropping lame shit and acting like your geriatric fixation on the music of your youth means more than it does, you keep dodging the question.  GOSH.  I WONDER WHY.




Your opinion of what makes music great means two things outside of your own ears: jack and shit.  Now, YOU stated earlier that the Beatles were innovative.  So, man up, motherfucker.  LIST these innovations.  Crying about how i'm treating you in this thread might work in the pudding line but color me unimpressed.  Trying to dance around YOUR statement by declaring that, all of a sudden, I"M the one with something to prove just makes your part in this thread all the more laughably pathetic.


Now, are you going to start listing shit or are you done acting like you know what the fuck you are talking about?


----------



## del (Dec 14, 2009)

"I Feel Fine" - 1st constructive use of feedback in a recording by anybody.

2. "Rain" - 1st experiment by the band with backwards recording.

3. "Tomorrow Never Knows" - 1st use of tape loop techniques by the band.

The Beatles' recordings also utilized such things as varispeed recording (vocals on "When I'm 64", among others), automatic double-tracking ("Rain" again, among others), linking multiple tape recorders together in sync to increase the number of tracks in the finished recording (most of the "Sgt. Pepper" album), etc. "I Want To Hold Your Hand" was probably one of the first singles to be recorded with a 4-track, as opposed to mono or 2-track.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

del said:


> "I Feel Fine" - 1st constructive use of feedback in a recording by anybody.
> 
> 2. "Rain" - 1st experiment by the band with backwards recording.
> 
> ...



You might want to watch The Language of Music and get back to me on that.

Tom Dowd and the Language of Music - Home


----------



## del (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > "I Feel Fine" - 1st constructive use of feedback in a recording by anybody.
> ...



then again, i might not.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Tom Dowd.  enjoy.


Now, i'm still wating for some giant list of innovations beyond beatle worship....


----------



## del (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Tom Dowd.  enjoy.
> 
> 
> Now, i'm still wating for some giant list of innovations beyond beatle worship....



i'm familiar with tom dowd- he did some great work, which of course takes nothing away from what the beatles and george martin did. 

frankly, i'm not interested enough to pursue it.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

del said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Tom Dowd.  enjoy.
> ...



the beatles and george martin doing nothing that Brian Wilson hadn't already put into play...


the unabashed beatle worship always cracks me up.  sure, they had some good music.. but pretending as if they are the second coming of the lord jesus christ in relation to musical offerings has always struck me as hilarious.


----------



## del (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> del said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



me too and if i'd seen any in this thread, i would have pointed it out.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

You might take a gander at the previous posts of the silent crusader when it comes to worshiping at the alter of liverpool.  Or don't.  It's no sweat off of my silly "pop art" cartoon that wasn't even voiced by the drab four.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



A list...You really are mono version of a real person. InnovatION is a technical term. InnovatIVE is an attitude and an approach...

My list:
The Beatles revolutionized music and culture...

end of list...

Now please school me on all the bands that blow away the Beatles...


----------



## Zander (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun, why so disparaging of the Beatles and Stones?  I don't see any hagiography on this thread, just appreciation by their fans.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Statements are not lists.  Now, did you want to clarify more than that you are a giant bafoon that is incapable of backing up your assertions?  Again, your opinions about the music of your childhood means nothing to anyone but yourself.  Which, certainly is NOT InnovaTIVE...  


not that innovatION isn't also based on the root concept of Innovate anyway, maroon.

sheesh.


Until you man up and do more than make statement I'm afraid you have no grounds to demand anyone else make a list of anything, sgt. pepper.  Obladi oblada, life goes on, right, bungalow bill?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Zander said:


> Shogun, why so disparaging of the Beatles and Stones?  I don't see any hagiography on this thread, just appreciation by their fans.



then you haven't read the fucking thread.  Indeed, had you made the attempt you'd have known that I have yet to disparage the Stones at all.  

Lemme guess... Rubber Soul changed your life too, eh?


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Why don't you go back and read your posts...and then tell me if YOU see who the asshole here is...OK?

As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. The Beatles DID revolutionize music and culture... 

But, my opinion of the Beatles and your opinion of the Beatles are irreconcilable...care to wager on who represents the OVERWHELMING majority?

Or maybe you would rather make a case for one of your mice...


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



your opinion of what constitutes an asshole is slightly less impressive than your opinion that the god gave the beatles to us, buddy.  true story.

and, AGAIN, just declaring as much doesn't make it so.  You keep SAYING that they revolutionized music without a single fucking solitary example of such.  Maybe if you put more effort into supporting your argument than crying like a bitch about how deeply I'm lampooning you in this thread...


"IN YOUR OPINION" is about the most profound offering you've posted thus far.  Just so you know, this isn't the 60s anymore, gramps.  When you baby boomers start dying off so too will beatles record sales.  true story.

now..   about that list you keep avoiding...


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



That's funny, my son's best friend who is 30 years younger than me is a bigger Beatles fan than I am...there is a whole new generation of Beatle fans that didn't LIVE through their dominance ...

The Beatles will live on well after you are gone let alone me...but all your mice bands will be dust... 

Rapleaf, an online brand consultancy, did a study of its social-media user audience and found the Beatles had four times as many fans as Michael Jackson did before he died, and more fans than Elvis, Madonna and the gloved one combined. The average age of a Beatles fan was the second-*youngest *of the four chosen musical celebrities; the band was the most popular in the 18-to-25-year-old group.


Rapleaf Study: Popularity and fan demographics of Michael Jackson, The Beatles, Elvis, and Madonna across social media


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

again, popularity doesn't mean anything in regard to "innovation", buddy.  Clearly, your personal example is broadly applicable!



Hell, by that standard every new generation to discover tye dye means that the Grateful Dead we god's second gift to music!  I'll remind you, even Milli Vanilli was popular.


Now, about those "innovations"....


still waiting..


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> again, popularity doesn't mean anything in regard to "innovation", buddy.  Clearly, your personal example is broadly applicable!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Milli Vanilli did not revolutionize music or culture...

AND...

It appears every new generation is discovering.............................................


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

That doesn't look like a LIST to me, ringo...


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> That doesn't look like a LIST to me, ringo...



I gave you my list. You're looking for technical data, go find a science thread...

Gee, if I could, I'd try to stem the tidal wave of new Beatle fans...but it is overwhelming and insurmountable...

Maybe I can become a fan of one of your tiny little mice bands...any candidates?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > That doesn't look like a LIST to me, ringo...
> ...



YOU posted a list?  post number, please.  claiming as much isn't a list, just so you know.


and yes, i'm looking for specific examples of innovation.  hey, don't cry on my shoulder because you let your fanboy glory day memories fuck up the verbiage that you used.


oh.. and one link to one opinion doesn't guarantee longevity.  Your faith is hitting papal proportions.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun said:
> ...



Opinion...no, it was sampled public profiles of 1.1 million fans... 

Here's an idea, because I want you to save a little face; why don't you give me something to shoot for, give me all the innovations of all of your tiny little mice bands...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Dec 14, 2009)

1966.  

This is how the Beatles dressed.






And this is Frank Zappa and the Mothers.






Notice anything?


----------



## Shogun (Dec 14, 2009)

Bfgrn said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



gosh buddy... I don't see that you stated a post number although you JUST insisted that you already posted this phantom list...



You don't have to worry about me saving face, yo.  I'm not worried about the opinions of some dude who is CLEARLY the poster boy for the Bruce Springsteen song Glory Days.


After all, at no point in this thread have I even remotely suggested that my own bands ever had an impact on innovating music industry LIKE YOU STATED ABOUT THE BEATLES.


Is this how you'd hoped to digress back into failure?  Save your concern about saving face for yourself, buddy, and go ahead and post this phantom list any time now.


----------



## Modbert (Dec 14, 2009)

Since I am one of those in the 18-25 Generation. I can tell you that a large amount of my generation has no clue who The Beatles are and a large amount that listen to them all the time. However, in my own experiences, I know more people who listen to The Beatles than those who do not.


----------



## Zander (Dec 14, 2009)

Shogun said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Shogun, why so disparaging of the Beatles and Stones?  I don't see any hagiography on this thread, just appreciation by their fans.
> ...



Nope, but anger management classes might change yours!!


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2009)

Dogbert said:


> Since I am one of those in the 18-25 Generation. I can tell you that a large amount of my generation has no clue who The Beatles are and a large amount that listen to them all the time. However, in my own experiences, I know more people who listen to The Beatles than those who do not.



And we are SO surprised you admit you are clueless.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2009)

Fact is, you can't compare The Stones to the Beatles.  Both are awesome bands and I could probably pick an equal number of songs from each that I like.  

The Beatles took over the world in the 60s.  The Stones were runners-up.  Only now is there a question.  A question more of the Beatles success versus the Stones' longevity.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 14, 2009)

*[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ults5C_j_AY[/ame]*


----------



## Luissa (Dec 15, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Fact is, you can't compare The Stones to the Beatles.  Both are awesome bands and I could probably pick an equal number of songs from each that I like.
> 
> The Beatles took over the world in the 60s.  The Stones were runners-up.  Only now is there a question.  A question more of the Beatles success versus the Stones' longevity.



 I think it would have been different if Lennon had lived, but you do have a point.


----------



## Shogun (Dec 15, 2009)

Zander said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



me? angry?  Perhaps you put a little too much weight in the bucket of your own significance, chap.




now, SING IT WITH ME!


Here's another clue for you alllll...  THE WALRUS WAS PAUL.


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 15, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y2XLIitX8o"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y2XLIitX8o[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (Dec 15, 2009)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uldu_1-JCJE"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uldu_1-JCJE[/ame]


----------



## Shogun (Dec 16, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM-VvLvmV6o[/ame]


----------



## elvis (Dec 17, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nY0SRsAeaw[/ame]


----------



## eots (Dec 17, 2009)

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH6BdOAgEIg[/ame]


----------



## ECW38Sqd (May 2, 2010)

Stones are great because they have a raw, gutsy sound that speaks to many generations. But for pure musicality, Beatles songs are superior (as a whole) to almost any group from any time. They just had two of the greatest songwriters competing to see how much material they could write, and it pushed both of them to be better than they would have been alone.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 3, 2010)

ECW38Sqd said:


> Stones are great because they have a raw, gutsy sound that speaks to many generations. But for pure musicality, Beatles songs are superior (as a whole) to almost any group from any time. They just had two of the greatest songwriters competing to see how much material they could write, and it pushed both of them to be better than they would have been alone.



Yea, but did Lennon or McCartney ever snort their father's ashes?

Keith Richards tells of snorting his dad's ashes with cocaine


----------



## Skull Pilot (May 3, 2010)

I do not own one beatles or stones album.

I was always of the opinion that they both suck


----------



## Bfgrn (May 3, 2010)

Skull Pilot said:


> I do not own one beatles or stones album.
> 
> I was always of the opinion that they both suck



I am not young enough to know everything.
Oscar Wilde


----------

