The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones...
By init_towinit
@init_towinit (53)
United States
September 30, 2008 12:51pm CST
OK,Two of the greatest bands of all time but which group is better? Personally, my favourite group in the whole wide world would have to be the Beatles. I think they were able to accomplish in 10 years (officially as recording artists) what the Rolling Stones have done in the last 46 years. The Beatles have more memorable tunes. Sure you've got RS songs like "Tainted Black" and "Satisfaction" but can those really compare to "Yesterday", "I Want to Hold Your Hand" or "I am the Walrus"? Cu-cu-ca-choo people!!! Lennon and McCartney were both able to be extremely successful after the Beatles break up. Who can forget "Imagine" and "Instant Karma" by John Lennon or "Live and Let Die" and "Silly Love Songs" by Paul McCartney? George Harrison had a couple of good songs like "My Sweet Lord" and "Got My Mind Set on You". Even Ringo was able to bust out some singing chops on "Photograph" and "You're Sixteen". I don't think Mick Jagger, Keith Richards or any other member of the Rolling Stones would be successful or as successful as solo artists. Each Beatle brought their own musical genius to the table and there's just no comparison between the two groups. I give the RS credit for having lasted this long though. That shows great commitment on their part but I'm not sure if their music is as impressive as their longevity.
What do you think????? Thanks for posting!
2 responses
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
1 Oct 08
It's "Paint it Black". And the Beatles are a girls band. Pure Bubble gum.I never did like them. Now all of their songs are memorable because they are in TV commercials.
@init_towinit (53)
• United States
1 Oct 08
LOL@Tainted Black - I knew that didn't look right! I think it probably had to do with the mood I was in at work. Felt like I was maybe the one tainted black. I can definitely see how The Beatles seem like a more "bubble gum" kind of group. Their early years included a lot of the catchy, happy-go-lucky kind of songs but they grew tired of that once they started to evolve. They were willing to push the boundaries of traditional rock n'roll music whether that meant layering tracks, using different instruments or playing music backwards. They influenced some of the biggest names in music over the past three decades. You can't blame them if some company's (cough::target::cough) marketing team wanted to run a campaign that included a little play on words and a song that you can't forget.
@morethanamolehill (1586)
• United States
1 Oct 08
I don't blame the companies. The glut of Beatles ongs in commercials has only come about since McCartney and Sony have gotten the catalog back from Micheal Jackson. But I guess I can't blame McCartney for that either since he has a lot of alimony to pay out.
I don't deny that they are a talented group. And arguably even more talented separately. But they influenced an entire generation of American kids. And not necessarily for the better. They brought a lot of influence that has done this country no good at all. I don't think that The Stones, even with their so called "devil worship" Have done near as much damage as the Beatles.
@paid2write (5201)
•
30 Sep 08
I am with you on this. I grew up as a Beatles fan. They just started out when I was a young girl and I remember every new album being released. I even saw them perform live when they did a U.K. tour!
The stones were around at the same time, of course. I can listen to them and enjoy the sound, but they were nowhere as innovative as the Beatles. Each album from the Fab Four was different from anything they had done before.
Lennon and McCartney wrote some songs which will last forever, and as you say they all did well as solo artists after the breakup. I think the music of George Harrison post-Beatles is among the most memorable - Something in the Way She Moves and Here Comes the Sun
