Azazello1313 Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 the beattles catalog translates better to the elevator muzak realm, the stones music translates better to the geriatric sell-out arena tour realm. seriously, I don't there is really much room to debate that these are the top two rock bands ever. maybe you have to give the beattles the slight edge based on their greater overall cultural cache, but if you could transport me back 40 years in time I would rather see the stones in person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 This is somehwat akin to apples and oranges. The Beatles, basically, did everything. Cripes, they even arguably invented the music video. When they broke up, their potential seemed unreal. The Stones lived and saw that potential. Sure, I love their music they published at the same time as the Beatles: Beggars Banquet & Let It bleed are powerhouses. But the stuff they put out after The Beatles broke up saw the Stones realize that potential with Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, It's Only Rock and Roll, Emotional Rescue, Some Girls... The question is impossible to answer, but only if you want to compare Sticky and Exile to the first round of solo albums the Beatles did, whcih was material I think you could have expected The Beatles to ahve done had they stayed together: Maybe I'm Amazed, Mother, My Sweet Lord, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Chiming in again....and repeating how stupid the argument between "the two" is. The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, and Sabbath. All bands in the rock genre to this day derive from these five. Whether you like them or not, this is just a simple fact. And without Bob Dylan, I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Chiming in again....and repeating how stupid the argument between "the two" is. The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, and Sabbath. All bands in the rock genre to this day derive from these five. Whether you like them or not, this is just a simple fact. And without Bob Dylan, I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place. Elvis, dumbass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Chiming in again....and repeating how stupid the argument between "the two" is. The Beatles, The Stones, The Who, Zeppelin, and Sabbath. All bands in the rock genre to this day derive from these five. Whether you like them or not, this is just a simple fact. And without Bob Dylan, I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place. All those five were musically influenced by the blues, not so much Dylan, although Dylan definitely did some of the groundwork politically and socially. That wouldn't stop any of them being Dylan fans but the first three - Stones, Beatles, Who - were blues / R&B influenced primarily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Elvis, dumbass. Elvis is the king you moron. He didn't change the way the others wrote songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 All those five were musically influenced by the blues, not so much Dylan, although Dylan definitely did some of the groundwork politically and socially. That wouldn't stop any of them being Dylan fans but the first three - Stones, Beatles, Who - were blues / R&B influenced primarily. yeah, I agree, I don't really see the dylan as forebearer for the beatles and stones argument either -- I can sorta see it for the beatles, but not at all for the stones. dylan came to fame as a simple, straight-forward folk singer. by the time he was playing rock and roll, the beattles and stones were already big-time -- there was probably more influence in the opposite direction, if anything. the correct answer to the "And without ___________ , I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place" statement is chuck berry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 All those five were musically influenced by the blues, not so much Dylan, although Dylan definitely did some of the groundwork politically and socially. That wouldn't stop any of them being Dylan fans but the first three - Stones, Beatles, Who - were blues / R&B influenced primarily. Dylan altered the thought process in what a song could say. The 1965 Beatles and Stones were much different than the 1964 versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 yeah, I agree, I don't really see the dylan as forebearer for the beatles and stones argument either -- I can sorta see it for the beatles, but not at all for the stones. dylan came to fame as a simple, straight-forward folk singer. by the time he was playing rock and roll, the beattles and stones were already big-time -- there was probably more influence in the opposite direction, if anything. the correct answer to the "And without ___________ , I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place" statement is chuck berry I'm not saying "without dylan" there wouldn't be any of those other bands, I'm saying that if you're going to draw the line of influence of all rock bands thereafter to those five, which is totally logical, then you'll probably have to have a separate little line for all of them concurrently to Bob Dylan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Dylan altered the thought process in what a song could say. The 1965 Beatles and Stones were much different than the 1964 versions. not as different as the 1964 and 1965 versions of bob dylan. his music changed pretty drastically in response to the british invasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 Dylan altered the thought process in what a song could say. The 1965 Beatles and Stones were much different than the 1964 versions. Um, LSD anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 not as different as the 1964 and 1965 versions of bob dylan. his music changed pretty drastically in response to the british invasion. I'm not saying that the appetite for what he was doing wasn't different as a result of the Beatles, but as a hardcore student of both of these entities, I'm pretty confident in saying that Dylan's influence was greater on the Beatles than vice versa. Dylan in '65 was more a result of the confines of folk music. Perhaps the audience tastes also, but it was more an FU to the dominant paradigm of his genre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 the correct answer to the "And without ___________ , I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place" statement is chuck berry Definitely not as different as the 1964 and 1965 versions of bob dylan. his music changed pretty drastically in response to the british invasion. Indeed. Dylan realized the vast ranges of musical variety he could use rather than just the narrow confines of folk. Dylan remains the greatest song lyricist ever but even HE had his influences outside Guthrie, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 the correct answer to the "And without ___________ , I'm not sure exactly what we would have heard from any of them in the first place" statement is chuck berry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bring Back Pat!!! Posted August 11, 2008 Share Posted August 11, 2008 The Kinks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 The Kinks I'd throw in Ray Davies and Brian Wilson in the discussion, but it starts getting a little crowded in there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 The Beatles are definitely better at converting to electric. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheikYerbuti Posted August 12, 2008 Share Posted August 12, 2008 I'm late to this party, but I'd like to cast a vote for the Beatles. Abbey Road and the White Album trump the Stones entire output, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.