IT'S A GAS, GAS, GAS!!
MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVES/WEEKLY ROCK POLL POST
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board Homepage
Subject: RE: not all answers can be correct
Date: Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Time: 11:33:16 AM
Remote Address: 22.214.171.124
Message ID: 306992
Parent ID: 306990
Thread ID: 306970
10 light years? My god man! NO WAY.
Your right, I was off there.... it was more like 20 light years!... Okay, I'm only half joking, the Beatles were never more than about 10 to 12 light years better than the Stones.
Your love for the Stones is talking there.... The Stones were nowhere in the same league as the Beatles were, period, and again, Mick and Keith both knew this and didn't care, as they didn't have to be as good as the Beatles. If you were around and old enough in the '60s, then you know this, and I'm not talking just music and songs here, as it wasn't just that in what I'm talking about, although music wise they were ahead of the Stones too, maybe not as a playing band, as the Beatles had 2 weaker links who were still growing, while the Stones were solid all around from day one, but in every other way the Beatles beat the Stones - from writing better songs, to how they just handled themselves, to how they were leaders, plus they had a charm that the Stones nor any other band never had.
The Stones were the raw, bad, and dirty boys (and why some kids like me liked them more), but overall, not until the late '60s was that appreciated by most other rock fans.
The Beatles were a decent band, but don't hold a candle to the Stones, not to mention a ton of other great acts. Why do so many get stuck on them as the greatest band that ever was?? Why??
Because they clearly were better than any other band, and again, it wasn't close. The Stones lacked in leadership back in those days to the Beatles. Most fans, like almost 99% of all rock fans before the late '60s, looked at the Beatles for direction, while almost none looked up to the Stones for that; the Beatles were the kings at just about everything they did and everybody who saw their output saw and knew it. I mean, even if I dug the Stones more in the '60s, I knew (and everybody else knew) that when you took any one Stones album, it had 2 or 3 great songs on it, while the rest were okay at best, but not as good. Yet every singe song on every single Beatles album had great songs on them, there were't any filler songs on the Beatles albums, every song was played on the radio, and every song was great - on the entire album, with few exceptions. That wasn't the case with any other band, period, and it was something that was talked about a lot. In the '60s, for every great Stones song, there was at least 10 great Beatles songs. It didn't matter if before Rubber Soul that they were all pop songs, they were still better songs than what any other band was putting out - period.
The Beatles lead in everything, including non music stuff, and again, the Glimmers would be the first ones to tell you that. The Stones totally copied the Beatles in most of what they did, too, up until around 1967 or so, and that's a true fact as much as the Glimmers (and maybe some fans today) never wanted to admit, but it was for the most part, true, and if you were around you could see it first hand (I never cared about that, I liked that the Stones copied them). Then when the Stones finally realized that they needed to be their own band only (after they got rid of ALO), they pretty much - after all the crap they took after the release of TSMR, started to shine and that was when they began to peak and become as good as the Beatles.
I just don't get it. Commercial success, selling records and an image, plus unbelievable popularity?...there's no question they were the greatest in those. But musically, creatively, and pure rich awesomeness...? Nope.
Come on, do you really think overall that the Stones wrote better songs than the Beatles from 1962 until 1970? It don't matter if the Beatles wrote more pop songs than the Stones did, since pop songs sold the most records in the early and mid '60s and that's what the public wanted to hear. Were the Stones a bit ahead of them music wise from '65 until about late '67, yes (other than for TSMR), but that didn't matter yet. But the Beatles finally caught up to the Stones music wise by '67, '68, and at the time was just as good if not again better than the Stones.
Note: Do not hit the "Post Message" button more than once, even if it is taking a long time to post your message. Doing so may cause a double post to appear and could slow down your posting time even more.
Download your free, customizable Burton Networks Message Board now!
© 1998 - 2019 by Keno Internet Services, except where otherwise noted. All rights reserved.
Return to Gasx3/Poll Post Board