The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[malaesthetique]

my dad summed up his dislike of the beatles by describing them as "parent approved"

i could not agree more. too culture friendly to be tasteful.

[16steps]

The Beatles, I can't fathom how one could actually dislike them. Anyone with any knowledge of music or of pop culture needs to give them much respect and acknowledge their impact.

this

/endthread

[malaesthetique]

While I understand one not wanting to deify The Beatles, I can't fathom how one could actually dislike them. Anyone with any knowledge of music or of pop culture needs to give them much respect and acknowledge their impact.

so your argument is that they should be liked (or at least not disliked) because they made a tremendous impact on popular culture? though economics may seem be the best and most objective means of measurement it fails to capture the true essence of modern art, which is the antithesis of "popular culture." But if you don't give a fuck about art and just like to indulge in "Rock 'N Roll" sounds effects with a fair degree of complexity then I guess the Beatles are your best bet. But as far as I can tell they were just preaching to the choir.

for 60's era pop/garage I too prefer the kinks. more witty and intellectual IMO. They used the formula of popular music to criticize popular culture without becoming too embroiled within it.

But your sentiments don't surprise me. Your mediocre taste in music is commensurate with your taste in clothing. It annoys me how enthusiastic people like you get over the most mundane, ordinary, accessible and ugly things.

[malaesthetique]

how could you forget helter skelter!? A song he wrote in response to the critics that said that the beatles arent a rockin band. If memory serves me correct, it was the first song to use reverb?

it is precisely this kind of historicism surrounding rock music which exalts groups like the Beatles far above their actual worth. i highly doubt that the Beatles were the first band to use reverb. they were probably just the first "popular" band to do it and get noticed.

And I should know, because I invented rock and roll (10).

[broneck]

Oasis sucks btw

oh heaaayyyyylllllll no he didn't

[cjbreed]

While I understand one not wanting to deify The Beatles, I can't fathom how one could actually dislike them. Anyone with any knowledge of music or of pop culture needs to give them much respect and acknowledge their impact.

right

Oasis sucks btw

wrong

i could not agree more. too culture friendly to be tasteful.

ridiculous thing to say

this

/endthread

right

so your argument is that they should be liked (or at least not disliked) because they made a tremendous impact on popular culture? though economics may seem be the best and most objective means of measurement it fails to capture the true essence of modern art, which is the antithesis of "popular culture." But if you don't give a fuck about art and just like to indulge in "Rock 'N Roll" sounds effects with a fair degree of complexity then I guess the Beatles are your best bet. But as far as I can tell they were just preaching to the choir..

wrong. (desperate attempt to appear to be a thoughtful, insightful, critical observer, but comes across as a previous level "oh i'm so counterculture" high school emo kid dipshit. John Lennon is an artist. Paul McCartney is an artist. George Harrison is an artist. Ringo...maybe not so much)

And I should know, because I invented rock and roll (10).

well then you should definitely "indulge" in it more. it will do wonders for you

oh heaaayyyyylllllll no he didn't

right

[16steps]

it is precisely this kind of historicism surrounding rock music which exalts groups like the Beatles far above their actual worth. i highly doubt that the Beatles were the first band to use reverb. they were probably just the first "popular" band to do it and get noticed.

And I should know, because I invented rock and roll (10).

no, im pretty sure they were the first band use it in a song. At the time, the beatles had full funding from Apple to do whatever the fuck they wanted to do. Which means they were able to explore a lot of different techniques that other bands would not have access to. They also came up with the modern way to naturally layer vocals

The fact that the beatles are the only band to have recorded entirely all of their studio sessions clues you in on the cash they had available at the time.

[malaesthetique]

ridiculous thing to say

wrong. (desperate attempt to appear to be a thoughtful, insightful, critical observer, but comes across as a previous level "oh i'm so counterculture" high school emo kid dipshit. John Lennon is an artist. Paul McCartney is an artist. George Harrison is an artist. Ringo...maybe not so much)

well then you should definitely "indulge" in it more. it will do wonders for you

okay mr. know-it-all, can you qualify your statements at all? its easy to dismiss someone else's point by calling it immature, previous level, or high-school, but can you actually defend your statements? Just spouting your contrary opinions and ad hominem insults doesn't discount my argument one bit. You say "Lennon is an artist", "McCartney is an artist", "Harrison is an artist" etc etc. I find you're definition of an artist to be too lenient and boring. Care to lay out the criteria or framework from which you make such a judgment? i really don't think you can without relying on an idealless form of pragmatism, which i personally find to be unsatisfying.

So please elaborate on your shallow opinions instead of just joining in on the slavish worship of pop-stars of yesteryear.

[malaesthetique]

no, im pretty sure they were the first band use it in a song. At the time, the beatles had full funding from Apple to do whatever the fuck they wanted to do. Which means they were able to explore a lot of different techniques that other bands would not have access to. They also came up with the modern way to naturally layer vocals

The fact that the beatles are the only band to have recorded entirely all of their studio sessions clues you in on the cash they had available at the time.

^mindless historicism merely adding to the myth. And by the way its easy to explore arbitrary avenues when you have commercial enterprises financing "artistic" works.

a simple google search shows that the subject of who invented reverb, let alone anything, is a controversial issue:

In 1951 Pierre Schaeffer began experimenting with a Morphophone tape deck. The model had 12 playback heads and was not the first source of reverb, but perhaps the first one that made it easy. [Les Paul did not invented Reverb] The God Button, that source of massive instant echo appeared in radio soon after. As FM radio became more popular, so did reverb on AM. It was some kind of defense mechanism to the "clearer" sound of mono FM. But now, the sound that was once so prevalent has has dwindled.

[cjbreed]

okay mr. know-it-all, can you qualify your statements at all? its easy to dismiss someone else's point by calling it immature, previous level, or high-school, but can you actually defend your statements? Just spouting your contrary opinions and ad hominem insults doesn't discount my argument one bit. You say "Lennon is an artist", "McCartney is an artist", "Harrison is an artist" etc etc. I find you're definition of an artist to be too lenient and boring. Care to lay out the criteria or framework from which you make such a judgment? i really don't think you can without relying on an idealless form of pragmatism, which i personally find to be unsatisfying.

So please elaborate on your shallow opinions instead of just joining in on the slavish worship of pop-stars of yesteryear.

ok so to simplify matters, i am going to skip the whole "define art" argument here and just say that to me, your definition is too narrow. and my opinions may be contrary to yours, but they are not contrary among educated musicians and music critics and music fans. yours are. yours are positively straining to be contrary in fact.

however

1. are you telling me john lennon is not an artist? (we'll stick with john for simplicity's sake)

2. are you saying that because they made money, they did not make art?

3. are you saying that because they impacted western culture in a massive way, they did not make art?

4. are you saying that because they made money and impacted western culture in a massive way, they did not make rock n roll?

art and music is subjective. there is no accurate way to judge one as better than the other. these types of polls and questions are fun and it is interesting to hear what people have to say. something like beatles vs. rolling stones makes sense, because there are legitimate points to both sides. but to just come out and say the beatles sucked, or the beatles were only interested in commercial success, or to be generally dismissive of them as merely a "pop star of yesteryear" just smacks to me of exactly what I said earlier. A person would say that only to appear to have a more refined and educated and superior sense of taste than virtually ALL of the refined and educated critics of rock history and virtually ALL of the rock bands in the world who have claimed them as major influences and virtually ALL of the billions (yes billions) of beatles fans in the world, thereby raising his own status to "ubergenius of music".

its just stupid dude. think about it. how many albums like rubber soul existed before rubber soul? revolver? sgt pepper? white album? abbey road? have you actually seen HELP? it's a great movie. how many songs like "a day in the life?" "a little help from my friends?" "eleanor rigby?" "Ob la di Ob la da?" blackbird?" "dear prudence?" "revolution?" "come together?" "here comes the sun?" "the medley (from abbey road)?" "across the universe?" "let it be?" "long and winding road?"

i won't even start on lennon's solo career ("god?" "imagine?" "instant kharma?"....)

this is art.

you can prefer the kinks (whom i love) or the stones (whom i also love) but they were innovators in every possible way. they were consistent and excellent and prolific and they were artists. it is indisputable man...

[sonicvoodoo]

i could not agree more. too culture friendly to be tasteful.

I don't even know WTF this means?

I'm not gonna debate the issue with you cuz you're a rebel without a clue. Suffice it to say, that almost every post Beatles band cites "The Beatles" as a major influence

There must be a reason.

The fact that "The Beatles" happen to be a huge commercial success doesn't detract from their art.....or at least it shouldn't. However I'm sure you're the type that is tired of bands you haven't even heard yet.....too played out.

[Pandemonium]

you say goodbye and i saw hello!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[eplsoccer7]

I may get negged for this but it should probably be said. THE BEATLES DID NOT CREATE POPULAR MUSIC. Pop music is created by the masses and has been around since before The Beatles.

Now to get to the discussion. Being the offspring of someone who was part of Beatle Mania, I am going to have to vote for the Stones. My Mother is no musicologist but she can't stand The Beatles. To her it was commercial music slammed down her throat via marketing techniques. Yet she will continue to see The Stones live. We can get technical and compare the two's ability to compose, perform etc. but I am somewhat biased on this opinion because growing up I wasn't listening to The Beatles. Yet it was more like Floyd, The Who, CSN, and The Stones.

On a couple side notes, The Yardbirds while being great should not be brought up because they are more of a supergroup that rotated members quite often. Clapton was out then Beck then Page I believe.

I am also digging this type of poll. It could be done with The Who vs Zep, Motown vs Soul. Etc. Anyways hope I dont get flamed to hard for my mothers opinions.

[landho]

My Mother is no musicologist but she can't stand The Beatles. To her it was commercial music slammed down her throat via marketing techniques.

What in God's name...?

[malaesthetique]

ok so to simplify matters, i am going to skip the whole "define art" argument here and just say that to me, your definition is too narrow. and my opinions may be contrary to yours, but they are not contrary among educated musicians and music critics and music fans. yours are. yours are positively straining to be contrary in fact.

however

1. are you telling me john lennon is not an artist? (we'll stick with john for simplicity's sake)

2. are you saying that because they made money, they did not make art?

3. are you saying that because they impacted western culture in a massive way, they did not make art?

4. are you saying that because they made money and impacted western culture in a massive way, they did not make rock n roll?

art and music is subjective. there is no accurate way to judge one as better than the other. these types of polls and questions are fun and it is interesting to hear what people have to say. something like beatles vs. rolling stones makes sense, because there are legitimate points to both sides. but to just come out and say the beatles sucked, or the beatles were only interested in commercial success, or to be generally dismissive of them as merely a "pop star of yesteryear" just smacks to me of exactly what I said earlier. A person would say that only to appear to have a more refined and educated and superior sense of taste than virtually ALL of the refined and educated critics of rock history and virtually ALL of the rock bands in the world who have claimed them as major influences and virtually ALL of the billions (yes billions) of beatles fans in the world, thereby raising his own status to "ubergenius of music".

its just stupid dude. think about it. how many albums like rubber soul existed before rubber soul? revolver? sgt pepper? white album? abbey road? have you actually seen HELP? it's a great movie. how many songs like "a day in the life?" "a little help from my friends?" "eleanor rigby?" "Ob la di Ob la da?" blackbird?" "dear prudence?" "revolution?" "come together?" "here comes the sun?" "the medley (from abbey road)?" "across the universe?" "let it be?" "long and winding road?"

i won't even start on lennon's solo career ("god?" "imagine?" "instant kharma?"....)

this is art.

you can prefer the kinks (whom i love) or the stones (whom i also love) but they were innovators in every possible way. they were consistent and excellent and prolific and they were artists. it is indisputable man...

you begin by saying you want to "skip" the whole define art thing which is not what i asked you to do. I asked the basis of your assesment, what qualified these guys as artists in your opinion and just as i predicted you could only grasp for a crackpot form of pragmatism appealing to popularity and public opinion. A very predictible move, but just like the personal insults you issued before it is yet another fallacy which doesn't strengthen your point at all. continue believing the myth--your buddy "John" would think your a fool for defending the artist integrity he was desperately searching for but never ultimately found.

I like the message of most of his songs on the plast ono band record, but its sloppiness and stripped down minimalism sounds too contrived considering the elaborateness of his work with the Beatles.

[eplsoccer7]

What in God's name...?

Being a 16 year old female who was a fan at the time, can't really stand listening to them today. Most of the people on this forum didn't live during the heydays of The Beatles. It is just her prefernce. What is hard to understand about that? Thought it would be a good thing to add in.

[landho]

Being a 16 year old female who was a fan at the time, can't really stand listening to them today. Most of the people on this forum didn't live during the heydays of The Beatles. It is just her prefernce. What is hard to understand about that? Thought it would be a good thing to add in.

It's not the first part of the statement I quoted that I take issue with. It's the description of the Beatles' music as "commercial music slammed down her throat via marketing techniques" that strikes me as ridiculous.

And the idea that people today can't understand something that happened in the past is also absurd. We didn't live through Mozart's time, but I think we can agree that his music is sublime. No ever mentions Mozart's music as being overplayed or overhyped. And I think we can agree on the Holocaust being super shitty, even though we didn't hide in cellars or have our loved ones killed in gas showers.

[sonicvoodoo]

what qualified these guys as artists in your opinion .

Are you actually asking what qualifies "The Beatles" as artists?

[malaesthetique]

my opinions may be contrary to yours, but they are not contrary among educated musicians and music critics and music fans. yours are. yours are positively straining to be contrary in fact.

art and music is subjective. there is no accurate way to judge one as better than the other. these types of polls and questions are fun and it is interesting to hear what people have to say. something like beatles vs. rolling stones makes sense, because there are legitimate points to both sides. but to just come out and say the beatles sucked, or the beatles were only interested in commercial success, or to be generally dismissive of them as merely a "pop star of yesteryear" just smacks to me of exactly what I said earlier. A person would say that only to appear to have a more refined and educated and superior sense of taste than virtually ALL of the refined and educated critics of rock history and virtually ALL of the rock bands in the world who have claimed them as major influences and virtually ALL of the billions (yes billions) of beatles fans in the world, thereby raising his own status to "ubergenius of music".

You are the naive one. All the music critics and fans you lean on for support do not comprise the scarcely organized and centerless vanguard which directs and advances modern art in its protean forms. The people you are in agreement with are nothing but simple minded and well sated consumers reinforcing a myth of quality and insight which they can never truly grasp because they are too deeply embedded within mass culture. In reality what you hold to be art is nothing but entertainment, a way to keep you happy with an unsatisfying existence. I really pity you for not being able to see through the ruse.

[malaesthetique]

Are you actually asking what qualifies "The Beatles" as artists?

the fact that you are alarmed does not constitute a valid point. its tantamount to saying "are you actually asking what qualifies Jesus as the Son of God?" and just makes you look like an idiot.

[sonicvoodoo]

so, you are in fact asking why The Beatles qualify as artists?....and BTW, I've never seen Jesus.

[eplsoccer7]

It's not the first part of the statement I quoted that I take issue with. It's the description of the Beatles' music as "commercial music slammed down her throat via marketing techniques" that strikes me as ridiculous.

And the idea that people today can't understand something that happened in the past is also absurd. We didn't live through Mozart's time, but I think we can agree that his music is sublime. No ever mentions Mozart's music as being overplayed or overhyped. And I think we can agree on the Holocaust being super shitty, even though we didn't hide in cellars or have our loved ones killed in gas showers.

You're missing the point. Its just another perspective. I am not trying to knock anybodies ability to relate to an event/person/era in time. But you seriously can't feel the same way as somebody who did hide in cellars or my grandparents who fled Vienna because of HItler. I just value her opinion more because she could lived the experience. And when I refer to marketing techniques. The whole Pierre Cardin suits, hair cuts, and almost "pretty boy" look did not follow them from the dive bars and clubs up in Liverpool.

[malaesthetique]

so, you are in fact asking why The Beatles qualify as artists?....and BTW, I've never seen Jesus.

so you are in fact an idiot.

I'll take this opportunity to say a few more words about the beloved Beatles. Their songwriting is quality from a biological perspective. They capitalize well off the archetypal melodies and sounds that human beings as creatures have adapted to responding to. But these structures are not to be conflated with modern art, properly speaking, which has more demanding criteria. The Beatles were just pop stars who indulged in the fashions of their day (including shallow revolutionary political theory) while making music that had enough of these hooks to keep their conditioned followers stimulated.

The stones were better in my opinion because instead of trying to make artsy music and preaching revolution, they instead played party music and preached a hedonic escapism.

[sonicvoodoo]

Oh, so you've seen Jesus?

20 Billboard # 1 hits. a record

Every list issued by music publications names numerous Beatles songs and albums in their "top lists"

One week in 1964 the Beatles held the first 5 postilions on Billboards top 100

They made 2 full length feature films and 1 full length animation

They made short films (videos) 40 years ago

20 of the 28 tracks that comprised The Beatles first 2 albums were overdubbed, albeit a rudimentary form of overdubbing known as "superimposition"....they were the first to use the technique

They began the modern long hair trend and molded fashion for years they didn't indulge in the fashion of the day, they helped forge it.

They capitalize well off the archetypal melodies and sounds that human beings as creatures have adapted to responding to. But these structures are not to be conflated with modern art, properly speaking, which has more demanding criteria.

that's why Yesterday is the most covered song of all time...and their whole catalog is covered, even today.

I get it, if you ain't Merzbow , you ain't an artist.

they introduced alternative instruments not normally heard in pop music

the fuckin' list is endless and I'm tired of typing

You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant

I have no problem with anyone preferring The Stones to The Beatles. I have a serious issue with anyone that completely discounts the artistry of The Beatles.

I'm done but please feel free to continue to post.

[landho]

You're missing the point. Its just another perspective. I am not trying to knock anybodies ability to relate to an event/person/era in time. But you seriously can't feel the same way as somebody who did hide in cellars or my grandparents who fled Vienna because of HItler. I just value her opinion more because she could lived the experience. And when I refer to marketing techniques. The whole Pierre Cardin suits, hair cuts, and almost "pretty boy" look did not follow them from the dive bars and clubs up in Liverpool.

Another perspective is not the same thing as another valuable perspective. And having lived through the time a subject occurred doesn't necessarily make you more qualified to expound on that subject. There are people today who can't talk cogently about September 11, for example, despite having "lived the experience."

[eplsoccer7]

The stones were better in my opinion because instead of trying to make artsy music and preaching revolution, they instead played party music and preached a hedonic escapism.

Great line. Also in the sense of comparing them as a "band," the Stones win out for the sole fact they are still a band. The Beatles lasted roughly 10 years. Yes their legacy lives on, but the band didn't and they all went on to pursue other avenues. I believe the Stones are still kicking.

On the super sarcastic side, I want to give Bob Dylan all the credit for the Beatles success. If he hadn't introduced the Beatles to drugs when they came to Cafe Wha? in the early 60s, the Beatles wouldn't have been stoned during all of Beatlemania and maybe would not have been so creative. Hahaha

[Francis Xavier]

Beatles.

PS- When are people going to realize just how little the Beatles and the Stones have in common?

Let's compare John Cage to Wagner next!

[eplsoccer7]

Another perspective is not the same thing as another valuable perspective. And having lived through the time a subject occurred doesn't necessarily make you more qualified to expound on that subject. There are people today who can't talk cogently about September 11, for example, despite having "lived the experience."

That doesn't mean they are allowed to throw in their 2 cents? There is a difference between living and experiencing. I lived during 9/11 yet did not experience it on the same level as somebody who happened to be working in one of the towers or was on duty at that time. You are really taking the point I was trying to make with my mother a little far. Of course she is not qualified but she was part of Beatlemania and not just around during the time. But everyone is entitled to their opinion on a matter and that opinion is one of the criteria I decided to base my judgement on. Deal.

[Aku]

maroon 5 > all

[malaesthetique]

Oh, so you've seen Jesus?

20 Billboard # 1 hits. a record

Every list issued by music publications names numerous Beatles songs and albums in their "top lists"

One week in 1964 the Beatles held the first 5 postilions on Billboards top 100

They made 2 full length feature films and 1 full length animation

They made short films (videos) 40 years ago

20 of the 28 tracks that comprised The Beatles first 2 albums were overdubbed, albeit a rudimentary form of overdubbing known as "superimposition"....they were the first to use the technique

They began the modern long hair trend and molded fashion for years they didn't indulge in the fashion of the day, they helped forge it.

that's why Yesterday is the most covered song of all time...and their whole catalog is covered, even today.

I get it, if you ain't Merzbow , you ain't an artist.

they introduced alternative instruments not normally heard in pop music

the fuckin' list is endless and I'm tired of typing

You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant

I have no problem with anyone preferring The Stones to The Beatles. I have a serious issue with anyone that completely discounts the artistry of The Beatles.

I'm done but please feel free to continue to post.

what's a merzbow? is it anything like a herzog? they kinda sound alike...

haha really though this is amusing. first the beatles invent reverb, now they invented "superimposition" and long hair. you're just adding to the myth and thus perpetuating the fantasy even further.

and you are obviously to dense to realize this, but like i told your buddy popularity doesn't qualify a point.