Jump to content

The Stones or The Beatles?


Wireboy
 Share

Recommended Posts

A question that has probably been asked every day for the last 50 years.

 

I am young enough to not have been challenged with that question during the 60's but I got asked today and it started a debate with young people this morning. What a legacy these bands have left.

 

Personally I don't see the value in the question. Why does one have to choose? In the 1960's was there only room for one?

 

I have just as many Stones albums as I have Beatles albums. I think they are both have a different style to always meet your mood. So when I am asked I can never answer.

 

If at a push I would say Beatles today but probably change it to Stones tomorrow depending on my mood. :)

 

So now I am asking the forum. Beatles or Stones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No contest with me WB. "The Beatles" brilliant performers, musicians and song writers. :D :grin:

To me the "Stones" should not even be on the same page. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

A question that has probably been asked every day for the last 50 years.

 

I am young enough to not have been challenged with that question during the 60's but I got asked today and it started a debate with young people this morning. What a legacy these bands have left.

 

Personally I don't see the value in the question. Why does one have to choose? In the 1960's was there only room for one?

 

I have just as many Stones albums as I have Beatles albums. I think they are both have a different style to always meet your mood. So when I am asked I can never answer.

 

If at a push I would say Beatles today but probably change it to Stones tomorrow depending on my mood. :)

 

So now I am asking the forum. Beatles or Stones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a band the Stones because they lasted. Individually the Beatles did more. But really it isn't a contest, it's possiblr to be a fan of both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't see the value in the question?

I don't see the value in the music!

Both made a lot of money, so it is pointless to argue that they didn't do what they did well. They obviously did. But musically it is and was, crap. Just like almost everything else in the charts.

Think MUSIC not money, not mass hysteria. Get yourself musically educated and then go out and start listening and you might, just might, realise what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do know what you mean Adam.

 

The problem is that when you start to "listen" in that manner you tend to forget the "music" and look for the imperfections in the performance.

 

I listen to all types of music and have no real affiliation for one particular style or genre. Some I like because they make me feel good and get the toes tapping. some I "like" because they do the opposite. Music usually evokes some sort of strong feeling in people, be it the memory of a past times a feeling of happiness or just a feeling of relaxation.

 

Whether it is "technically" good or bad does not really matter as long as the individual listening to it gets something from it that they can "relate" to. It does not matter if it is a full symphony orchestra playing a beatles song for example or a busker playing a selection of mozart on a beat up accordian. As long as you are enjoying what you are listening to.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that begs the argument about Soul music and classical.

Nothing evolved from classical, whereas Soul was the start of most musical genres.

Classical was for the rich, whereas soul was for the poor masses.

 

I would suggest that the topic should be answered by someone of the younger generation, rather than someone who grew up in that era and are unbiased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Soul started everything else?

Peter, what are you talking about? I know I am getting on a bit, but I remember the term "Soul" arriving on the scene. I have never been quite sure what Soul is, because the sort of music which all of a sudden started being described as soul had been there before. It was just "pop" then. Sometimes it was referred to as "blues", although it was not a very apt comparison.

 

Classical never led to anything? Classical led to everything! The pop music of the 50s, when the likes of Sinatra, Frankie Laine, etc, were accompanied by full orchestras rather than four guys with guitars and drums, was very much influenced by classical. The post-rock pop music was influenced by jazz and blues.

 

Classical was for the affluent? It's nothing to do with money. Go to a Halle concert and see how many working class folk are there! Classical may well be for the educated, rather than the ignorant masses and the educated, in those days at any rate, were generally the wealthy. But it was the education that made appreciation of good music available to them, not how much money they had. There are plenty of wealthy people about who cannot appreciate good music, art, culture, or anything else that they can't eat or drink!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, what came first? Classical or the songs of the slaves in the cotton fields or the music/songs of the natives all around the world.

It's pointless comparing Sinatra and the big bands sound with modern music. If I remember rightly Bill Haley and his Comets knocked Sinatra and co from the top of the music scene.

Rapidly followed by Elvis who got a lot of his music and feeling from the black spirituals.

I feel quite sorry for you really, having such a limited musical taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...