40 years later can we finally say who is best: Stones or Beatles?
- Thread starter louballoo
- Start date
vuk
\o/ choose anarchy
OK, so what are a few songs that i would know which don't fall into that "tiny fraction".
i could list about 40 off the top of my head that have that "barbershop quartet" feeling about them.
vuk.
Once they became big The Beatles were until the end of 1966 on a permanent world tour, contracted to star in a movie and also to release two albums a year no wonder there were a few album fillers.
No modern day band has ever been flogged so hard yet they still produced loads of high quality music.
No modern day band has ever been flogged so hard yet they still produced loads of high quality music.
kasperhauser
pfm Member
I'm sure McCartney has forgiven all of us for never having written a memorable song, ever.
There's a nice Sonny Rollins solo on "Waiting on a Friend".
There's a nice Sonny Rollins solo on "Waiting on a Friend".
I'll have you know I wrote a number of memorable songs on the bus to and from school.
Memorable due to swearyness and the resulting trips to the headmaster's office, but memorable none the less.
A popular one was 'Old men on the bog' set to the tune of 'New kids on the block'. Rocked the house every time.
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
gassor
There may be more posts after this.
The Stones wrote some of the most memorable songs in pop - loads of them. You can't have a proper party without Lets Spend the Night Together or Brown Sugar. They also made some brilliant albums Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed et al. They have lasted 50 years and are still one of the world's great pop attractions.
But the Beatles were more creative. Rather than just look at the songs they made, look at how they progressed in 6 years from The Beatles to Abbey Road and some of the influences they took on board in that time. It is still truly astonishing what they achieved in their time. And they are still reviled and praised by nearly everyone who is interested in music 40+ years later.
The real point is we will never see anything as influential and totally magnificent as these two bands ever again.
But the Beatles were more creative. Rather than just look at the songs they made, look at how they progressed in 6 years from The Beatles to Abbey Road and some of the influences they took on board in that time. It is still truly astonishing what they achieved in their time. And they are still reviled and praised by nearly everyone who is interested in music 40+ years later.
The real point is we will never see anything as influential and totally magnificent as these two bands ever again.
Tony L
Administrator
Whilst Ian is clearly wrong about the great T. Rex vs. Slade question and is more than a little unkind to Mr Bowie and Mr Eno, he does have this argument covered IMO. I have nothing further to add.
PS Vuk, do you see everything with close harmony singing to be "barber shop", e.g. would you describe Pet Sounds that way?
PS Vuk, do you see everything with close harmony singing to be "barber shop", e.g. would you describe Pet Sounds that way?
Jonathan Ribee
Unavailable at present
I think The Beatles were more stoned than The Stones.
Changed my mind about Sir Macca recently as he has done some good fun concerts with generous time on stage.
tim_bissell
pfm Member
Did you see the Olympic opening ceremony? Too damn generous with his time on stage...
Stones for me now; in '72 I was 7, and the songs I remember from that time were all T-Rex for some reason (Ride a White Swan, Jeepster etc.).
-- Tim
Even the French have managed to give him some respect in his old age.