Beatles, Stones, etc - from Gottlieb thread

[MartyClark]

Yep, you’re right. That’s all it is — different tastes, different perspectives. I mean, The Beatles are the greatest band of all time by just about any metric, but some people who have seen the ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ movie, especially those who are younger than 30, have now been fooled into thinking Queen is on the level of The Beatles when in reality they (Queen) might barely be in the top 25.

Well, maybe that was a poor example of what I’m trying to say, but I just felt like saying it. As far as the Gottlieb thing goes, a lot of people really like his podcast and a fair amount do not, and that’s perfectly fine. I just think the “alarmingly unathletic” thing should be put to bed. But hey, what do I know?

Steven43, I'm guessing you weren't alive when the Beatles came to the U.S. and the subsequent raging debate about Beatles v. Rolling Stones.

[OldPhiKap]

Steven43, I'm guessing you weren't alive when the Beatles came to the U.S. and the subsequent raging debate about Beatles v. Rolling Stones.

“The Beatles want to hold your hand. The Stones want to burn down your village.”

(Although I’d go with The Who over both, and The Kinks as the most underrated band ever).

[jv001]

Steven43, I'm guessing you weren't alive when the Beatles came to the U.S. and the subsequent raging debate about Beatles v. Rolling Stones.

Personally I'll go with my favs in this order: 1) The Platters. 2) The Temptations. 3) The Eagles. 4) The Who. 5) Four Tops. As for Dougie boy, I don't hate him nor I do I love him. He's ok but I've gotten over his unathletic comments of our 2010 team. Unathletic or not, they were the best in 2010.

GoDuke!

[dball]

Steven43, I'm guessing you weren't alive when the Beatles came to the U.S. and the subsequent raging debate about Beatles v. Rolling Stones.

Later certainly but the debate was Beatles or Dave Clark Five. DC5 followed the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show and made more appearances on that show than any other British Invasion group.

Beatles had nine hits in 64 but DC5 had five. Granted, not that close but it was discussed quite a bit at the time.

Stones weren't really big until Satisfaction in summer 1965. Hit number one while Beatles already had three thus far that year, followed with another two before Stones had Get Off My Cloud. Last number one that year was by DC5.

Beatles had a good year and a half before Stones had big hits.

[MartyClark]

Later certainly but the debate was Beatles or Dave Clark Five. DC5 followed the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show and made more appearances on that show than any other British Invasion group.

Beatles had nine hits in 64 but DC5 had five. Granted, not that close but it was discussed quite a bit at the time.

Stones weren't really big until Satisfaction in summer 1965. Hit number one while Beatles already had three thus far that year, followed with another two before Stones had Get Off My Cloud. Last number one that year was by DC5.

Beatles had a good year and a half before Stones had big hits.

Good response and my thoughts are largely irrelevant to the bigger picture.

I've come to appreciate the Beatles again after a couple of decades of thinking they were overrated. I now love the simple energy of some of their early songs. I think they were overrated when they got more complicated. I don't see great music or creativity in the Sgt. Pepper album, overly praised by the music world.

They quit early. Sometimes a sign they have accomplished everything possible, sometimes a sign they just didn't have what it took to be a longtime, major, cultural influence.

The whole was definitely greater than the sum of the parts. Lennon, on his own, or even worse with Yoko Ono was terrible. McCartney is barely okay but, IMHO, is barely adequate pop music.

All subjective opinions, I know.

[Steven43]

Good response and my thoughts are largely irrelevant to the bigger picture.

I've come to appreciate the Beatles again after a couple of decades of thinking they were overrated. I now love the simple energy of some of their early songs. I think they were overrated when they got more complicated. I don't see great music or creativity in the Sgt. Pepper album, overly praised by the music world.

They quit early. Sometimes a sign they have accomplished everything possible, sometimes a sign they just didn't have what it took to be a longtime, major, cultural influence.

The whole was definitely greater than the sum of the parts. Lennon, on his own, or even worse with Yoko Ono was terrible. McCartney is barely okay but, IMHO, is barely adequate pop music.

All subjective opinions, I know.

Wow, I don’t even know where to start with this. The Beatles were overrated??? John Lennon was terrible? Paul McCartney is barely okay? This is blasphemy, pure and simple. 99.9% of Music historians and the larger popular music community would shred your commentary to pieces. I’m not going to waste my time with it, though. It’s just not worth it.

But I will say I agree 100% with your loving their early songs. I could listen to their first five albums (released from 1963-1965) any time. However, they got even better after that starting with ‘Rubber Soul’ in 1965. Anyway, keep on keeping on.

[Phredd3]

The Beatles were overrated??? John Lennon was terrible? Paul McCartney is barely okay? This is blasphemy, pure and simple. 99.9% of Music historians and the larger popular music community would shred your commentary to pieces.

Personally, I think the Beatles did groundbreaking work and absolutely were a "longtime, major, cultural influence." I respect them. However, I don't own a single album of theirs, and generally speaking, when I hear one of their songs on my old-fashioned car radio, I at least think about changing the channel 9 times out of 10. For Lennon and McCartney as solo acts, it's pretty much 10 out of 10 times. "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time" is an absolute travesty that is foist upon me repeatedly every holiday season (at least for about five seconds or so in each instance, before my instincts kick in and I get my fingers to the radio buttons).

But then, music is pretty much like wine: There isn't an objectively bad song or bad glass of wine. The best of either is no more and no less than the one you like best. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

[OldPhiKap]

Personally, I think the Beatles did groundbreaking work and absolutely were a "longtime, major, cultural influence." I respect them. However, I don't own a single album of theirs, and generally speaking, when I hear one of their songs on my old-fashioned car radio, I at least think about changing the channel 9 times out of 10. For Lennon and McCartney as solo acts, it's pretty much 10 out of 10 times. "Simply Having a Wonderful Christmas Time" is an absolute travesty that is foist upon me repeatedly every holiday season (at least for about five seconds or so in each instance, before my instincts kick in and I get my fingers to the radio buttons).

But then, music is pretty much like wine: There isn't an objectively bad song or bad glass of wine. The best of either is no more and no less than the one you like best. Don't let anyone tell you differently.

Speaking of Yoko . . . .

The Beatles were groundbreaking. Many bands built from there to extremely cool places. Nothing wrong (as you say) with recognizing the foundation while liking the branches better.

[brevity]

To anyone who was wondering, "Haven't we discussed this before?" and "Did Olympic Fan ever have an opinion on this debate?" the answers to both are yes. From this 2017 thread:

Late comer to this debate, but as a child of the '60s, I can't believe there is a debate.

During the period when both bands were active, there was no comparison -- the Beatles were head and shoulders above the Stones. It was only after the Beatles broke up, while the Stones kept rocking, that rational people started to suggest the Stones were the equal or the superior of the Beatles.

Heck, has anyone mentioned that the Stones first chart hit (I Want to be Your Man) was written by the Beatles?

This debate makes me think of a similar baseball debate -- who was the better centerfielder, Mantle or Mays.

Both great of course, but during their prime, Mantle was clearly the superior player (his OPS plus between 1952 and 1964 was over 170 and he led the league eight times; Mays OPS over the same period was barely 160 and he led the league five times). The difference is that after 1964, Mantle was basically finished as a great player. Mays was still playing all-star quality ball through 1972.

So which was the greater player? Mantle because his peak was higher or Mays because his peak was so much longer?

The Beatles were the greater of the two bands, but the Stones have last so much longer ...

I came across this list -- Rolling Stone Magazine's 100 greatest albums of all time:

http://www.listchallenges.com/rollin...top-100-albums

I know it's just one source (although a good one), but in regards to our debate:

-- The Beatles had seven of the top 100 albums of all time, including No. 1 (Sgt. Pepper), No. 3 (Revolver). No. 5 (Rubber Soul), No. 10 (the White Album) and No. 14 (Abbey Road). Also, No. 39 (Please, Please Me) and No. 53 (Meet the Beatles). Those seven Beatles albums doesn't include two solo John Lennon albums.

-- The Stones had four in the top 100, topped by No. 7 Exile on Main Street. Also No. 32 Let it Bleed, No. 58 Beggar's Banquet and No. 64 Sticky Fingers.

Again, just one organization's opinion, but it's clear what the rock critics think of this debate.

I totally disagree with those of you who don't like the White Album.

Yeah, I don't love every song, but with two LPs and four sides, it's loaded with great music -- starting with the opener, Back in the USSR. I also love the two Revolutions (No. 1 and No. 9), Happiness is a Warm Gun, Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da, Helter Skelter (even if Charles Manson didn't understand it), Bungalow Bill, Birthday, and My Guitar Gently Weeps (which includes a solo by Eric Clapton).

The album contains a lot of different styles and major contributions from all four band members (plus, I hate to say, Yoko)

I'm not saying it's my favorite Beatles' album (that would be Sgt. Pepper), but I understand -- and agree with -- the Rolling Stone ranking.

[Devilwin]

The Beatles were the best by any yardstick you want to measure them by. Record sales, influence, you name it. I was 12 when they did Ed Sullivan. I will say they were better as a group, even though Paul has sold over 100 million records on his own.
They had three albums in a row that were simply mind blowing. Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Pepper. There's no band better than the Beatles, and I doubt there ever will be.

[MartyClark]

Wow, I don’t even know where to start with this. The Beatles were overrated??? John Lennon was terrible? Paul McCartney is barely okay? This is blasphemy, pure and simple. 99.9% of Music historians and the larger popular music community would shred your commentary to pieces. I’m not going to waste my time with it, though. It’s just not worth it.

But I will say I agree 100% with your loving their early songs. I could listen to their first five albums (released from 1963-1965) any time. However, they got even better after that starting with ‘Rubber Soul’ in 1965. Anyway, keep on keeping on.

First time I have been accused of blasphemy on this site but I'm not taking it personally. I stand by my comments and think you are begging the question by accusing me of wasting your time.

[Bob Green]

I am a huge fan of both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. The Beatles were the best but The Rolling Stones certainly get longevity points.

They had three albums in a row that were simply mind blowing. Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Pepper.

Revolver is the greatest album ever! While I like all of their music, the middle period Devilwin highlights is the best.

[lotusland]

To anyone who was wondering, "Haven't we discussed this before?" and "Did Olympic Fan ever have an opinion on this debate?" the answers to both are yes. From this 2017 thread:

Nothing exemplifies music like winners and losers so, if we’re still keeping score, I’m still in the Stones camp. No hate for the Beatles tho. I reserve that for those talentless hacks in the Grateful Dead . Kidding sort of. It’s not hate so much as puzzlement and incredulity.

Ducks and runs...

[Bob Green]

As great as Revolver was (the greatest album ever), singles Paperback Writer and Rain were cut during the Revolver sessions but not included on the album.

And for Sgt. Peppers fans, Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever could have been included.

Day Tripper could have been on Rubber Soul.

More data for my (with credit to Devilwin) point the middle period was best.

[Music man55]

The Beatles were the best by any yardstick you want to measure them by. Record sales, influence, you name it. I was 12 when they did Ed Sullivan. I will say they were better as a group, even though Paul has sold over 100 million records on his own.
They had three albums in a row that were simply mind blowing. Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Pepper. There's no band better than the Beatles, and I doubt there ever will be.

What The Beatles did in April of 1964 will most probably never be equaled.They had numbers 1 through 5 on the top 40 chart. #1(Can't Buy Me Love) #2(Twist and Shout) #3(She Loves You) #4(I Want To Hold Your Hand) #5(Please Please Me).I'd like to see any one or band then or now top that!

[luvdahops]

As great as Revolver was (the greatest album ever), singles Paperback Writer and Rain were cut during the Revolver sessions but not included on the album.

And for Sgt. Peppers fans, Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever could have been included.

Day Tripper could have been on Rubber Soul.

More data for my (with credit to Devilwin) point the middle period was best.

Great points all, though I tend to define the "middle period" as Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver, plus the singles released in the 1965-66 time frame, with Sgt. Pepper marking the beginning of the "later period". FWIW, my top 3 are Revolver, Abbey Road and Rubber Soul. I think those are head and shoulders above all the others, Sgt. Pepper included, though a single disc White Album might be a contender. Too many throwaways as a double album, though.

[Devilwin]

How about Hey Jude on the White album?

[devildeac]

How about Hey Jude on the White album?

About 3 minutes too long.

(ducks)

[Duke79UNLV77]

What The Beatles did in April of 1964 will most probably never be equaled.They had numbers 1 through 5 on the top 40 chart. #1(Can't Buy Me Love) #2(Twist and Shout) #3(She Loves You) #4(I Want To Hold Your Hand) #5(Please Please Me).I'd like to see any one or band then or now top that!

The one thing I'd say is that those songs all sound pretty similar, and I don't think any of them are particularly good. I do like a good number of later Beatles songs as they developed. Still, I'm definitely in the Who's camp over the Beatles and the Stones.

[Steven43]

Great points all, though I tend to define the "middle period" as Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver, plus the singles released in the 1965-66 time frame, with Sgt. Pepper marking the beginning of the "later period". FWIW, my top 3 are Revolver, Abbey Road and Rubber Soul. I think those are head and shoulders above all the others, Sgt. Pepper included, though a single disc White Album might be a contender. Too many throwaways as a double album, though.

I agree that Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, and Abbey Road are amazing, all-time classic albums. All four of them are among the top 10-15 albums any band has ever made. But for my money their greatest album, their masterwork, is...The White Album. I think it’s the most diverse, most creative, most inspired, and simply the best album of all time.

When I was a student at the University of Munich (for just one year, unfortunately) I checked out The White Album (on CD) from the school library and I listened to it over and over and over again. I got to know those songs so well that they became like dear friends. I knew every sound, every note, every lyric. When I returned to the United States I moved to Austin, TX (to attend the University of Texas at Austin). One day while looking through the used albums at Waterloo Records I stumbled across one of the original White Albums with the serial number on the cover and with discs made of white vinyl!! For me it was akin to finding the Holy Grail. I have treasured it ever since and always will. Long live The Beatles!