Dylan vs. Lennon,that's whats intressting...

by the way I wote Dylan..ehh Lennon ehhh Dylan no Lennon ehh...

I love both, just wonder if the Beatles had stayed together at least for the 70's then what would they have written. The Stones were at their best during 69 - 72 so maybe the Beatles had their best to come and not hit their peak when they split.

Quote
mickscarey
Not even close. beetels were a boy/pop band.

Stones were and are the REAL DEAL

Sorry but that's nonsense.

Quote
pgarof
I love both, just wonder if the Beatles had stayed together at least for the 70's then what would they have written. The Stones were at their best during 69 - 72 so maybe the Beatles had their best to come and not hit their peak when they split.

I have always reflected that the Beatles were few years ahead of the Stones - I think their golden era is from 65 to 68 and the signs of creative down hill were in the air during their last years. The meeting point was in 1968: THE BEATLES (white album) & BEGGARS BANQUET: the other group reaching the last stage of their creative greatness before starting to lose the muse, while the other just finding the true muse.

Well, for fun, here is a short history of the Beatles/Stones-debate:

* At the time Mick and Keith played to the audience of Dick Taylor's mother (and Brian was mostly seducing illegal children), the Beatles learned the game in Reeberbahn.
* In 1962-63 when The Beatles, after making a 'pop turn' from raw rock and roll, started to conquer the world as the biggest pop phenomenon ever, The Stones were learning the game in London club circuit.
* 1964 was the year of The Beatles vs. The Stones everybody (your mama/papa/grannies) tirelessly still wants to talk about. The Beatles were the lovely 'boy-band' everyone loved and the Stones the bad boys (by being somehow remained close to their club circuit style, material and 'raw' approach). Both partied together and laughed all the way to the bank.
* From 1965 to 1967, inspired by, for example, by Dylan or whatever, The Beatles decided that this whole pop thing can be developed to another level: everyone else, including The Stones (even though creating an era defining songs as "Satisfaction" ) followed - or tried to follow - them. The Beatles ruled the musical world, and took the whole genre of pop/rock into new heights.
* 1968 The Stones found their own original voice, the reign of The Beatles started to be over, and people like Hendrix were showing the direction from then on.
* 1969 to 1972; The Beatles tried to cope with latest trends, and mostly with each other but failed, and call it quits - The Stones turned out to be the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' and created a body of work that is still the most solid compared to anyone ever since.
* from 1973 on: creative downhill for the Stones but the band tried - sometimes with a huge success - to cope with the trends and times; since 1989 the big money has been found in mega tour nostalgy market. The Beatles, being first a passe for some years, continued to grow - especially after the tragical death of John Lennon - as to the symbol and icon of the 60's when everyone was happy, young and creative, and sells incredible amount of records every year.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-04 15:49 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
pgarof
I love both, just wonder if the Beatles had stayed together at least for the 70's then what would they have written. The Stones were at their best during 69 - 72 so maybe the Beatles had their best to come and not hit their peak when they split.

I have always reflected that the Beatles were few years ahead of the Stones - I think their golden era is from 65 to 68 and the signs of creative down hill were in the air during their last years. The meeting point was in 1968: THE BEATLES (white album) & BEGGARS BANQUET: the other group reaching the last stage of their creative greatness before starting to lose the muse, while the other just finding the true muse.

Well, for fun, here is a short history of the Beatles/Stones-debate:

* At the time Mick and Keith played to the audience of Dick Taylor's mother (and Brian was mostly seducing illegal children), the Beatles learned the game in Reeberbahn.
* In 1962-63 when The Beatles, after making a 'pop turn' from raw rock and roll, started to conquer the world as the biggest pop phenomenon ever, The Stones were learning the game in London club circuit.
* 1964 was the year of The Beatles vs. The Stones everybody (your mama/papa/grannies) tirelessly still wants to talk about. The Beatles were the lovely 'boy-band' everyone loved and the Stones the bad boys (by being somehow remained close to their club circuit style, material and 'raw' approach). Both partied together and laughed all the way to the bank.
* From 1965 to 1967, inspired by, for example, by Dylan or whatever, The Beatles decided that this whole pop thing can be developed to another level: everyone else, including The Stones (even though creating an era defining songs as "Satisfaction" ) followed - or tried to follow - them. The Beatles ruled the musical world, and took the whole genre of pop/rock into new heights.
* 1968 The Stones found their own original voice, the reign of The Beatles started to be over, and people like Hendrix were showing the direction from then on.
* 1969 to 1972; The Beatles tried to cope with latest trends, and mostly with each other but failed, and call it quits - The Stones turned out to be the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' and created a body of work that is still the most solid compared to anyone ever since.
* from 1973 on: creative downhill for the Stones but the band tried - sometimes with a huge success - to cope with the trends and times; since 1989 the big money has been found in mega tour nostalgy market. The Beatles, being first a passe for some years, continued to grow - especially after the tragical death of John Lennon - as to the symbol and icon of the 60's when everyone was happy, young and creative, and sells incredible amount of records every year.

- Doxa

Good post

Funny how the Beatles only lasted 7 years while the Stones have gone on for nearly 50,
yet certain Stones fans still get defensive when it's a known fact the Beatles will always be #1 in the annals of history.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

I vaguely remember Mick Jagger being asked about the Beatles, saying something like:
"We are like xy to yx (2 Car Rental companies). We have always been second. First to the Beatles, then to Creedence Clearwater, to Led Zeppelin, (laughing) Deep Purple have been louder than us, then came Punk."
And the journalist was laughing too because he realized that all the others had been gone... That was about the time Prince, Police and Michael Jackson were ahead.

As pointless a debate today as it was back in the day, as Mick "quite diplomatically" put it:





"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Deltics
As pointless a debate today as it was back in the day, as Mick "quite diplomatically" put it:

I've been looking for this clip for, like, ever!

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
Deltics
As pointless a debate today as it was back in the day, as Mick "quite diplomatically" put it:

I've been looking for this clip for, like, ever!

It was my first ever upload on Youtube!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Quote
Rockandosis
Coke Cola vs Beer

I pick beer.



Greetings from the Jersey Shore.

Quote
still ill

Quote
mickscarey
Not even close. beetels were a boy/pop band.

Stones were and are the REAL DEAL

Sorry but that's nonsense.

you wrong... AGAIN!

Like comparing Stax and Motown. You can't. Two totally different beasts and both loom large.

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
still ill

Quote
mickscarey
Not even close. beetels were a boy/pop band.

Stones were and are the REAL DEAL

Sorry but that's nonsense.

you wrong... AGAIN!

Ahh, the inevitable brilliance of meekscary. A legend in his own mind.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
still ill

Quote
mickscarey
Not even close. beetels were a boy/pop band.

Stones were and are the REAL DEAL

Sorry but that's nonsense.

you wrong... AGAIN!

Ahh, the inevitable brilliance of meekscary. A legend in his own mind.

Thanks. I love you

B.S. 1964 wasn't the year of the Beatles vs. the Stones. 1964 was the year of the Beatles vs. the Dave Clark Five. The Stones competed with the rest of the British Invasion pack until Satisfaction gave them a world wide smash in mid-'65. In the public eye they were a singles band until Beggars Banquet, which got its buzz from the massive 45 hit of the summer of '68, Jumping Jack Flash. By the time they reached world wide superstar status with Honky Tonk Women in the summer of '69, there was very little time left to compete with the Beatles. Face it, the Beatles are the only group the Stones have to look up to, and they readily admit it. If the Beatles hadn't been 'good', the Stones couldn't have been 'bad'. Like many of us, the Stones tried to sell out, but nobody wanted the whores in the houndstooth jackets. Personally I prefer the Stones music, but no one, no one, compares to what the Beatles were. Don't even mention Michael Jackson. Now, maybe you could make the argument that the Beatles had to look up to Elvis. It took four of them to compete with one hip shakin' rockabilly cat from Tupelo.

Quote
24FPS
B.S. 1964 wasn't the year of the Beatles vs. the Stones. 1964 was the year of the Beatles vs. the Dave Clark Five. The Stones competed with the rest of the British Invasion pack until Satisfaction gave them a world wide smash in mid-'65. .

True from an American point of view, but I would claim that in UK - and to an extent, in some places of Europe - the Beatles/Stones debate - that I think never was that huge in US after-all - had its peak in 1964. The Stones were leading the r&b movement and did its breakthrough as a kind the anti-Beatles. Then all those famous "would you let daughter marry.." stories occured. For Americans the Stones were, right, just another British Invasion band until "Satisfaction". But in Britain, the peak of the Stones in their popularity was actually "The Last Time" (the third number one in a row and their best selling single in UK ever) - that made, for example, Bill Wyman to claim for US televison that "they were number one in England". In early 1965 that might even be true.

Overall, it would be interesting to compare the different "Stones-experiences" - how the band was seen by different countries, etc. Those weren't the same. ut another thread.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-05 09:16 by Doxa.

Quote
Deltics

Quote
Edith Grove

Quote
Deltics
As pointless a debate today as it was back in the day, as Mick "quite diplomatically" put it:

I've been looking for this clip for, like, ever!

It was my first ever upload on Youtube!

Waw, Mick is hilarious! Is it 64? He is 20-21, so unsophisticated, so naive and... sweet. Opposite to all to come.

DOXA - Overall, it would be interesting to compare the different "Stones-experiences" - how the band was seen by different countries, etc. Those weren't the same. ut another thread. (quote)

I'm too lazy to start another thread. The Stones experience in America was indeed very different. They were primarily a Southern California, New York experience for the first few years. That's why when Brian died it didn't have the impact in the States that it might have had in Europe. We didn't know the band that intimately yet to figure out who was playing what instruments. The Beatles were the thing here and they remained massively popular until the end, with little drops around the time of Revolver and Magical Mystery Tour. The Stones never overtook them in America, the Beatles simply disbanded. I don't think the Stones were truly on top in America until 1972. And Led Zeppelin was always lurking in the background as a tremendously popular band in the States in the 70s. The overall American audience started catching on to the Stones mythology with Hot Rocks and it grew from there with the '72 tour. I have a friend who attended the Swing Auditorium gig in San Bernardino in 1964, the first Stateside gig for the Stones.

As I've stated previously, the Stones were a singles band here. They were probably too sophisticated for us teenyboppers who collected Beatles trading cards from bubble gum packs, or listened to 'Bits and Pieces' on our little mono 45 players. 'Satisfaction' was the breakthrough, and a lot of boys in my sixth grade class thought the song was deliciously filthy, but 'Get Off of My Cloud' returned them to a good time jangly pop world. I remember the controversy over 'Street Fighting Man' but we didn't get to hear it because it was banned. The first trio of singles, 'Satisfaction', 'Cloud' and '19th Nervous Breakdown' established them here as pop giants. The second set, 'Jumping Jack Flash', 'HTW' and 'Brown Sugar' made them rock superstars in America.

Of course the UK experience was different. It wasn't until the Beatle Anthology came out that I caught up with Beatlemania '63. For us the Beatles history begins on February 9th, 1964, and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' is what we think of as the first Beatles smash hit. Now we know that they'd been knocking it out of the park in Europe with single after single in '63.

I don't know of a comparable U.S. act that was big here and then caught on later in the UK.

It's a well-known fact that The Beatles are more universally loved than any other artist (maybe Elvis is on par). Fact is they broke more barriers - carrer-movements, songwriting, studio-experimenting - than any other. Look at those facts. Can't be debated, weather you like the music or not.

The Rolling Stones will be remembered for "being that archetypical Rock 'n Roll band with Mick Jagger. They made Satisfaction, Honky Tonk Women, Start Me Up and... err...".

I know this is in many ways unfair for the Stones, but their music just isn't as "likeable" as The Beatles' comercially speaking . It takes more time to "know" the zen of the music, and that's why it will never be as "loved".

This isn't meant negatively.

And I won't try to tell who I love most of those two bands. It depends on taste from day to day...

It just seems that after that Satanic magical mystery request they decided to quit chasing The Beatles. and then they went on about an 8 year run of nothing but incredible music

Quote
NoBozos
It just seems that after that Satanic magical mystery request they decided to quit chasing The Beatles. and then they went on about an 8 year run of nothing but incredible music

Very interesting point.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
pgarof
I love both, just wonder if the Beatles had stayed together at least for the 70's then what would they have written. The Stones were at their best during 69 - 72 so maybe the Beatles had their best to come and not hit their peak when they split.

I have always reflected that the Beatles were few years ahead of the Stones - I think their golden era is from 65 to 68 and the signs of creative down hill were in the air during their last years. The meeting point was in 1968: THE BEATLES (white album) & BEGGARS BANQUET: the other group reaching the last stage of their creative greatness before starting to lose the muse, while the other just finding the true muse.

Well, for fun, here is a short history of the Beatles/Stones-debate:

* At the time Mick and Keith played to the audience of Dick Taylor's mother (and Brian was mostly seducing illegal children), the Beatles learned the game in Reeberbahn.
* In 1962-63 when The Beatles, after making a 'pop turn' from raw rock and roll, started to conquer the world as the biggest pop phenomenon ever, The Stones were learning the game in London club circuit.
* 1964 was the year of The Beatles vs. The Stones everybody (your mama/papa/grannies) tirelessly still wants to talk about. The Beatles were the lovely 'boy-band' everyone loved and the Stones the bad boys (by being somehow remained close to their club circuit style, material and 'raw' approach). Both partied together and laughed all the way to the bank.
* From 1965 to 1967, inspired by, for example, by Dylan or whatever, The Beatles decided that this whole pop thing can be developed to another level: everyone else, including The Stones (even though creating an era defining songs as "Satisfaction" ) followed - or tried to follow - them. The Beatles ruled the musical world, and took the whole genre of pop/rock into new heights.
* 1968 The Stones found their own original voice, the reign of The Beatles started to be over, and people like Hendrix were showing the direction from then on.
* 1969 to 1972; The Beatles tried to cope with latest trends, and mostly with each other but failed, and call it quits - The Stones turned out to be the 'greatest rock and roll band of the world' and created a body of work that is still the most solid compared to anyone ever since.
* from 1973 on: creative downhill for the Stones but the band tried - sometimes with a huge success - to cope with the trends and times; since 1989 the big money has been found in mega tour nostalgy market. The Beatles, being first a passe for some years, continued to grow - especially after the tragical death of John Lennon - as to the symbol and icon of the 60's when everyone was happy, young and creative, and sells incredible amount of records every year.

- Doxa

I certainly don't see 'Abbey Road' as inferior to 'The Beatles' White Album, quite the reverse. As a body of work, i think in terms of musical growth/experimentation and consistency, no one has ever eclipsed the Beatles in those 7-8 years. I actually think The White Album is not quite up to the Beatles normal standard (partly because of its length), and much like 'Sergeant Pepper' in terms of the quality of songs being that little bit less consistent, although 'Sergeant Pepper' will always have that exalted position because of its timing. I always see 'Revolver' as the Beatles best album, and after that they lose a little of their freshness and spontaneity as they become a little more sophisticated, and perhaps over indulgent, and a touch too self important. However, by anyone else's standards they were still very much at a peak. 'Abbey Road' is one of their strongest efforts in my opinion, although the interwoven thread of unfinished songs on side two seems a little over produced for my taste. I think in retrospect, the Beatles peaked with 'Revolver' (when they were still working together cohesively as a group), and in a sense 'Beggars Banquet' is the the Stones album which is most comparable to it. By 68, the Stones were very much pulling ahead, as the Beatles were becoming so much less of a cohesive unit in the studio, although they could still come up with some of their most enduring songs at this point, like 'Hey Jude'. Really, 'Beggars Banquet' was the first Stones album which was of the quality of what one had come to expect from Beatles album releases, although stylistically, the Stones have always been my favourites by far. The Stones peak really came as the Beatles were beginning to break up. The Beatles may have had internal problems, but they never truly lost their muse right to the end. In terms of being at the forefront of importance in terms of their musical status, post 'Sergeant Pepper' other artists may have been more progressive or even more creative in their own very individual ways (Jimi Hendrix for example) but in terms of recording accessible songs in a more conventional sense, the Beatles remained pretty much unbeatable.

The thing about the 1970s is to a degree popular music was still evolving, and the corporate aspects of the post mid eighties pop scene had yet to take hold. To a point much of the Beatles original output was used as inspiration for groups to develop their own sounds, which often had their origins in what the Beatles had achieved originally, ELO for example. The concept album, which was incredibly popular in the early seventies took its inspiration from 'Sergeant Pepper', from where a lot of the more progressive sounds to be found on them, took their inspiration too (alongside other influences). I believe the Beatles of course were a primary influence, and yet the seventies contained many many different and diverse sounds also, which really had very little to do with the Beatles. It is amazing to think in the seventies, McCartney would only play relatively few Beatles songs on his tours with Wings, because he too had the belief that his present day musical output had some contemporary relevance, which perhaps to a degree it did, and he could exist comfortably aside from his Beatles legacy. Post Lennon's assassination nostalgia for all things to do with Lennon took hold, although the full on nostalgia didn't really take place until a little later, when popular music was in danger of collapsing under its own greed, and much of the popular music started to get watered down to its lowest common denominator. It was perhaps then, that the public, and the media, started looking back to better days, when popular music wasn't purely market driven, and there were signs of more creativity and individuality.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-06 09:22 by Edward Twining.

Edward, the point of 'belittling' the output of the Beatles in their last years was not stating that they weren't popular (they were) or didn't make any great music (they did - the quality of their work over-all is impressive, and lives in the rank of their own and yeah, ABBEY ROAD is one more classical album) BUT: they didn't have he impact to the musical and cultural world as much as they used to have (which was INCREBIBLE in 1964-1967). They didn't lead the trends any longer. I think they could be compared to he post-EXILE Stones in that sense. Goddamn popular, great albums - for example, GOATS HEAD SOAP or TATTOO YOU are favourites among Stones fans but they really don't signify anything outside the Rolling Stones 'box'. Taking what The Beatles were in their peak of significance 64-67, what they did in 68-70 wasn't so important or significant any longer. That was my original point in my post that The Beatles were past their true peak as musical and cultural phenemenon at the time they call it quits. That doesn't mean they couldn't have come up with some great music if they would have continued.

For example, I always remmeber how surprised I was when I first watched STONES IN THE PARK and Jagger saying "You know, I always felt that The Beatles - you know, when they were big - that their thing was doing records, ours like doing concerts...". And that was in 1969! Yeah, a bit arrogance from the side of Jagger but he still - I would claim - described the signs of the times. The Beatles were in their way to safe and sure cultural corner of Elvis as far as their significance to 'cool' scene goes. (The road The Stones took in the mid-70's, by the way). I think John Lennon more han anyone was self-conscious of the dangers of taking the road of going to safe entertainment. For example, he was so jealous and bitter for The Stones being so popular among counter-culture crowds (in the late 60's). I think the problem - if I understand Lennon right - was that the the nature of the band - too many strong individuals with egos and own visions - was not flexible enough to cope with he times. They were eating the edge of each other - at least Lennon's - and the result turned out to be compromises. What more, as a very popular band, they were "too big" which leads to conservative choices (the same problem with the Stones in last decades, by the way). And for example, some of their failed experiments had started to show (read: Magical Mystery Tour), anything they do is not a sure success. As great album as ABBEY ROAD is, I think it is a kind of retro album in Beatles terms - for the last time they played together as they used to do. The reference of the music was not finding new territories but sticking to the things they have already mastered. If my impression is right the people hurrayed ABBEY ROAD exactly for this reason: it sounded like The Beatles used to or supposed to do. But it didn't enlarge their musical vocabulary any longer.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-06 10:12 by Doxa.

To recapitulate one point: what the Stones achieved in the late 60's - with super singles "Jumpin' Jack Flash" and "Honky Tonk Women" - not to forget the symbolic significance of the 'failed' "Street Fighting Man" (Thanks 24FPS!) - and with albums BEGGARS BANQUET, LET IT BLEED, was to combine a huge commercial "pop" success but still able to be relavant to the 'cool' counter-culture crowds. (Plus: they re-estalished their status as world hottest live band with their American tour 1969). They reflected the times in their music; "Gimme Shelter" was the song of the era. The Beatles only could achieve commercial success by then. The Stones, without no doubt, were a 'cooler' band. This fact - plus some Jagger's remarks - made bitter Lennon in his famous ROLLING STONE interview '70 to whine how The Stones just copied The Beatles who actually were more "revolutionary". Yeah, poor Lennon refers to the times when The Beatles were something of the sort and makes stupid comparisions between music that by then belonged to the past era no one even remembered or cared about ("All You Need is Love"-> "We Love You", "Yeserday"-"As Tears Go By", SGT. PEPPER -> SATANIC MAJESTIES).

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-06 10:42 by Doxa.

Actually Doxa, I think you are missing some important points. The Beatles, having not toured since 1966 achieved that legend status where fans and press were fixated on their every move. Recording output aside, the fact that their breakup dominated the rock news cycle, and was the topic of conversation showed how intense the interest was in The Beatles. You are conveniently lumping together time frames, and forgetting that they were still, up to their break-up the most popular force in music. And then there can be arguments that even after their break-up they were at times more popular than the Stones...sales wise it certainly shows. And then boom, ever 10 years or so another shot of intense Beatle interest mania. But again your are using personal opinion to qualify The Stones as the cooler band. Which is fine, but there would be just as many fans of The Beatles and music in general who still found them quite cool. And again, sales would be another litmus test showing the level of their popularity and influence.
But like was stated above, I am just happy to love them both equally so I can get the benefits of both bands output and history.

Whitem8, you certainly are missing my point. Of course, the Beatles were the biggest till the end - and perhaps ever - as far as popularity goes. They always sold much more records as The Stones or anyone did (and they still do). They were the biggest celebrities and super sars of the pop world and all. I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW!!!! YES YES YES!!!!!!!

But that was not my point; forget the money and record sales, the celebration status, how much room they get from newspapers and pop magazines, etc. They did't simply rule the trends any longer. Their music wasn't the mirror of the times any longer (no matter how much revisonism is used today: it seems like nothing else but the Beatles happened in the 60's nowadays) - the true action that would excite the imagination of the youth occured elsewhere; The Doors, Hendrix, Cream, Velvet Underground, Zappa, Pink Floyd, CCR, Zeppelin, Grateful Dead, Woodstock - had all took the whole rock culture to a new direction - partly more adventurous, partly more professional, partly more controversial and political. The Beatles were a phenomenon of their own but not anyomore the vehicle of change that would inspire the rest or even reflect the happenings. My argument was that by the late 60' they were in their way to Elvis-like institution status: sell more than anybody but doesn't really contribute to evolution of music any longer. (Like I said, The Stones took the route by the mid-70's - and what they have done since 1989 is equal to Las Vegas Elvis.)

My point concidering the late 60's scene was that the Stones were popular enough to sell a lot of records and still maintain a 'cool' status among a new trends and people when the rock culture turned out to be more serious business. Their hassles with the police and the law almost gave a moral mandate (plus their original bad boy image with which they were odds with more happier, hippier 66-67 times) to be be representatives of the revolutional scene of the late 60's. But what is most: in their music - from "Jumpin' Jack Flash" on to LET IT BLEED, they reflected perfectly the violete, aggressive atmsophere in the air from 1968 on. The Black panthers dug them; the Andy Warhol New York scene loved them. The whole bloody counter-culture scene loved them. The Stones were the symbols of the rock and roll coolness, danger and sexuality. To mention the right word, they were controversial. The Beatles were not. (No wonder John Lennon was pissed of the image-war The Stones won 100-0.). That the Stones were not so popular as The Beatles was almost a virtue of ts own. The popularity of The Beatles turned funnily agianst of themselves.

It is not my claim of The Stones being cooler a those times. That is my reading of the people - not representatives of big pop masses but some selected ones - reflecting those times. To take different examples. A serious blues snob Mick Taylor started to pay attention to the 'pop band' Stones thanks to BEGGARS BANGUET thinking "wow, first time, an English band sounds authentic blues band". Andy Warhol has good stories why The Stones were 'cool' not the Beatles among the art people (John Lennon knew that very well). MC5 guys have described the release of "Honky Tonk Women" was almost a statement; Joe Strummer's world was redefined by "Street Fighting Man". Etc.

As far as I am concerned I think the Stones have always been cooler than the Beatles. But that was not what I was talking about.

Hmmm... how is it that the Beatles is a kind holy cow that cannot be discussed in a bit critical and objective, not jesus-like terms not even in a Rolling Stones board, what?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-06 14:09 by Doxa.

Oh Doxa, never did I say it isn't possible to discuss. Very nice to read your post. And as I said I am glad I like them both and get equal enjoyment from both. I never thought as one group being cooler than the other, more like partners...

Why compare two bands that don't sound like each other at all?

They both made great music and looked cool (well, at least after 1965). You can't ask for more.