Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 20:59     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
A boy band fundamentally is CREATED by a record company. The Beatles were not.

Their music from the beginning was what they were playing in clubs. AHDN captured their personalities and wit.

You’re just wrong. You don’t know enough about them to make this argument credibly. Sorry.
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 20:48     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!


I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.


That’s nothing compared to the Beatles’ versatility. They spanned rock n roll, hard rock, classical, ballads, country, psychedelic, world music, old 40s sorts of songs (ex: Martha my dear) and even sort of proto metal (Helter skelter).

To the PP: they were never a boy band, despite their appeal teenage girls. I HATE when people apply that to them. Arguably the first boy band (aka a manufactured group specifically marketed to teenagers and not organically formed) were the Monkees.


https://www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html
I'm still siding with Vulture on this one. They were manufactured early but broke from the mold. The Monkees never broke free.


What? No.

They were made to wear suits, but they were NOT manufactured. They wrote their own songs.

Every band had an image they were asked to adhere to. That doesn’t make them a boy band.
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 18:18     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!


I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.


That’s nothing compared to the Beatles’ versatility. They spanned rock n roll, hard rock, classical, ballads, country, psychedelic, world music, old 40s sorts of songs (ex: Martha my dear) and even sort of proto metal (Helter skelter).

To the PP: they were never a boy band, despite their appeal teenage girls. I HATE when people apply that to them. Arguably the first boy band (aka a manufactured group specifically marketed to teenagers and not organically formed) were the Monkees.


https://www.vulture.com/2015/09/beatles-were-the-greatest-boy-band-ever.html
I'm still siding with Vulture on this one. They were manufactured early but broke from the mold. The Monkees never broke free.
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 17:34     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!


I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.


That’s nothing compared to the Beatles’ versatility. They spanned rock n roll, hard rock, classical, ballads, country, psychedelic, world music, old 40s sorts of songs (ex: Martha my dear) and even sort of proto metal (Helter skelter).

To the PP: they were never a boy band, despite their appeal teenage girls. I HATE when people apply that to them. Arguably the first boy band (aka a manufactured group specifically marketed to teenagers and not organically formed) were the Monkees.
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 06:44     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!


I somewhat disagree. The Stones did change their sound throughout the years. Pop-ish in the early 60’s, then they tried to be psychedelic with Her Satanic Majesty Requests, but admittedly failed. In the early 70s (Sticky Fingers) there is a pronounced Country influence and Some Girls and Emotional Rescue embraced Disco, to an extent. But, at their core they are a Blues band.
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 06:24     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Personally, I think the Beatles were much better at recreating themselves to match the times.

from light-hearted boy band songs to deep (and sometimes disturbing) music

Each one had his own style as well. (I loved George.)

The Stones were fairly consistent and long-lasting, but their ability to adapt (perhaps not necessary) wasn't there. I like the versatility of the Beatles!
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 00:10     Subject: Re:The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:Beatles could not survive without the manager.


What a stupid comment. What band could?

Moreover they released some of their best work after he died.
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 00:09     Subject: Re:The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Again?
Anonymous
Post 07/09/2019 00:03     Subject: Re:The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Beatles could not survive without the manager.
Anonymous
Post 07/07/2019 12:26     Subject: Re:The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Happy Birthday Ringo.
Anonymous
Post 07/07/2019 12:10     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones
We never got it off on that revolution stuff
What a drag
Too many snags



I thought this song was Bowie for the longest time. Now that’s another conversation. I love the Beatles but Bowie was an incredible songwriter.


It does sound like Bowie. He also wrote Growing Up and I’m Fine. Somehow it still “sounds” like Bowie to me.
Anonymous
Post 07/07/2019 11:38     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones
We never got it off on that revolution stuff
What a drag
Too many snags



I thought this song was Bowie for the longest time. Now that’s another conversation. I love the Beatles but Bowie was an incredible songwriter.
Anonymous
Post 07/07/2019 10:38     Subject: Re:The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
The Beatles and the Stones
Sucked the marrow out of bone
Put the V in Vietnam
The Beatles and the Stones
Made it good to be alone
Anonymous
Post 07/07/2019 09:04     Subject: The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones
We never got it off on that revolution stuff
What a drag
Too many snags

Anonymous
Post 07/07/2019 08:08     Subject: Re:The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones
Anonymous wrote:The Beatles were big because they were more like craft.. but the Stones are more like art. Different kind of big.
If the two were food, Beatles would be like Rice Crispy cereal, processed to perfection that leads to nausea requiring search for something palate cleansing.. like say.. bread.. they eventually became their own bread after they split but perhaps they got drawn in their own overly sweet music that just like honey was difficult to swim for a long time in.

Stones.. Stones were more self made not so processed, they were more like organic food, the flavor is deeper,
more intense, lasts longer and long after eating you feel that your body has been feed for a very long time... in a very good healthy way.


What are you talking about?

What the Beatles did was absolutely art. They were also completely self-made.

You are really ignorant about music. Give me actual data to support your point rather than delving into a convoluted food analogy that makes no sense.