BeatleLinks LogoNav Panel New Sites Cool Sites Top Rated Fab Forum Add A Site Link To Us Revolution Radio New Products



Go Back   BeatleLinks Fab Forum > Beatles Forums > I Read The News Today


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Jul 25, 2002, 07:19 PM   #21
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

what really hurts me is that i think if i were born then (in the 60's) i´d probably be a rolling stones kind of girl. only because there were all those those screaming creatures near the buckingham palace. i know i´d probably hate all that, curse all that consumistic beatlemania and be like an anti-beatle girl (only ideologically speaking, of course)
thank god i wasn´t born then.

------------------
The Love You Take Is Equal To The Love You Make
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2002, 08:41 PM   #22
Wonderwall
Fool On The Hill
 
Join Date: Jul 22, 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 23
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

The bit about the orgies can be read about in Peter Browns book "The Love You Make".

BlueMaryRyan:I bet you're one of those fourteen year olds who own all records by The Beatles and dismisses all music that sounds any different in style.You'll do any thing to keep the "beatlepride" intact.Btw:

Ever heard of HAMBURG?

------------------
Free as a bird...it's the nearest thing to be.
Wonderwall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2002, 03:48 AM   #23
SleepyHead
Sun King
 
SleepyHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2000
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 9,705

Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

The Rolling Stones longevity as a group is a misnomer, given the number of replacements over the years, with little or no appreciable difference in their appeal to the general public or music critic. The Rolling Stones only exist as long as Mick Jagger does - it is not now, nor has it ever been, an entity identifiable as a band of co-equal members.

The Beatles, on the other hand, did not "make it" before taking Ringo on board (popular locally, but lots of groups can make that particular claim), and when they broke up, they broke up. No replacement parts for these guys - the band existed only as long as all 4 guys held it together.

This difference alone is more than sufficient to explain why the Beatles are a much greater band than the Rolling Stones ever was or ever will be.

But if you need more proof, consider the following info provided by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame:<UL TYPE=SQUARE>December 1, 1963
"I Want to Hold Your Hand," the Beatles' first American single, is released by Capitol Records.

*****
January 18, 1964
“That Girl Belongs to Yesterday,” by Gene Pitney, enters the Hot 100. Written by Rolling Stones Mick Jagger and Keith Richards, it is their first song to chart in America.
*****

January 26, 1964
I Want To Hold Your Hand (The Beatles) was a hit.

March 15, 1964
She Loves You (The Beatles) was a hit.

March 29, 1964
Can't Buy Me Love (The Beatles) was a hit.

April 4, 1964
The top five slots on the 'Billboard' chart are held by the Beatles, a feat never before or since matched.

May 24, 1964
Love Me Do (The Beatles) was a hit.

July 26, 1964
A Hard Day's Night (The Beatles) was a hit.

December 20, 1964
I Feel Fine (The Beatles) was a hit.

March 7, 1965
Eight Days a Week (The Beatles) was a hit.

May 16, 1965
Ticket to Ride (The Beatles) was a hit.

*****
June 19, 1965
The Rolling Stones score their first #1 on the American charts with "Satisfaction".
*****

August 29, 1965
Help! (The Beatles) was a hit.

October 3, 1965
Yesterday (The Beatles) was a hit.

October 9, 1965
The Beatles reach #1 with "Yesterday".

January 2, 1966
We Can Work It Out (The Beatles) was a hit.

*****
June 5, 1966
Paint It Black (The Rolling Stones) was a hit.

June 11, 1966
The Rolling Stones reach #1 with "Paint It Black".
*****

June 19, 1966
Paperback Writer (The Beatles) was a hit.

*****
February 26, 1967
Ruby Tuesday (The Rolling Stones) was a hit.
*****

March 12, 1967
Penny Lane (The Beatles) was a hit.

March 18, 1967
The Beatles reach #1 with "Penny Lane".

August 13, 1967
All You Need Is Love (The Beatles) was a hit.

August 19, 1967
The Beatles reach #1 with "All You Need Is Love".

December 24, 1967
Hello Goodbye (The Beatles) was a hit.

December 30, 1967
The Beatles reach #1 with "Hello Goodbye".

September 22, 1968
Hey Jude (The Beatles) was a hit.

September 28, 1968
The Beatles reach #1 with "Hey Jude".

May 18, 1969
Get Back (The Beatles) was a hit.

May 24, 1969
The Beatles reach #1 with "Get Back".

*****
August 17, 1969
Honky tonk Woman (The Rolling Stones) was a hit.

August 23, 1969
The Rolling Stones reach #1 with "Honky Tonk Women".
*****

November 23, 1969
Come Together (The Beatles) was a hit.

November 29, 1969
The Beatles reach #1 with "Come Together".

*****
December 26, 1969
'Let It Bleed' by the Rolling Stones enters the charts.
*****

April 5, 1970
Let It Be (The Beatles) was a hit.

June 7, 1970
The Long and Winding Road (The Beatles) was a hit.

*****
May 23, 1971
Brown Sugar (The Rolling Stones) was a hit.

October 14, 1973
Angie (The Rolling Stones) was a hit.

July 30, 1978
Miss You (The Rolling Stones) was a hit.
*****

1988
The Beatles inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

*****
1989
The Rolling Stones inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame
*****

November 19, 1995
"Free as a Bird," the first new Beatles single in 25 years, is premiered on the televised Beatles Anthology. The song, a 1977 demo by John Lennon completed in 1995 by the three surviving Beatles, reaches #6 on the singles chart in early 1996.

March 23, 1996
"Real Love," a 1979 John Lennon demo finished in 1995 by the other Beatles, becomes the second new Beatles single to chart in less than three months. Released as part of 'The Beatles Anthology' recordings and TV special, it reaches #11 – not bad for a band that broke up in 1970.[/list]
From the first Beatle song to enter the American charts (December 1, 1963) to their last chart hit (June 7, 1970) before being inducted into the R&RHoF (1988) they had 20 "hits", and 7 #1's, using whatever criteria the Hall of Fame deems appropriate.

From the first Stones song to enter the American charts (January 18, 1964) to it's last (July 30, 1978) before being inducted (1989), they garnered 8 hits with 3 #1's by that same criteria.

No matter how you slice it, the Beatles come out a clear winner: a hit every 119.05 days versus a hit every 663.12 days, a #1 every 340.14 days versus one every 1768.33 days.

And no whining about not including any hits post-induction, either; I have tried my best to make the Stones look as prolific and as commercially viable, as well as beloved by the public as possible by keeping their time line to those limits. By adding in the dearth of chart toppers in the wider gulf of the ensuing 24 years, it only makes their figures that much more dismal.

------------------

In Memory Of Robby
Our Lady's Psalter
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page
Bearkat77's Tribute to John Lennon
Bearkat77's Tribute to Ringo Starr
SleepyHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2002, 08:58 AM   #24
Magill
Sun King
 
Magill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 02, 2002
Location: Back to where I once belonged
Posts: 13,597

Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

Despite what's been said about Mick, today is his 59th birthday. C'mon everyone, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MICK!!
Interestingly enough, Bugs Bunny is 62 today..and he looks better than Mick..hmm..there's a joke in there somewhere.

------------------
Thanks for the lift, sailor!
Magill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2002, 09:37 AM   #25
beatlebangs1964
Moderator
 
beatlebangs1964's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 23, 2001
Posts: 37,548



Send a message via AIM to beatlebangs1964
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

What's up with that? Sir Mick! Now that he shares the honor of being knighted with Sir Paul, Sir Eric and Sir Elton and Sir Ringo, he'll be singing, "Let's Spend the Knight Together!"

------------------
Then we will remember things we said today. Yeah.
-- Beatles, 1964

Read www.rooftopsessions.com for high caliber Beatles fan fiction.

BB1964
beatlebangs1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 27, 2002, 07:26 PM   #26
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Magill:
Despite what's been said about Mick, today is his 59th birthday. C'mon everyone, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, MICK!!
Interestingly enough, Bugs Bunny is 62 today..and he looks better than Mick..hmm..there's a joke in there somewhere.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

------------------
The Love You Take Is Equal To The Love You Make
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2002, 08:59 PM   #27
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Beatlesgal:
Ok Let's think about this for a second. While the Stones use their bold and moody attitudes to sell records, you rarely hear anything about the Beatles yet their stuff sales. What are people really paying for? With the Stones, I highly doubt it's the music. A few Stones' songs are worthy of listening to, but they aren't songs that you ponder and listen to over and over again. The Beatles are timeless. The Stones are just the wanna be boy band of the Sixties. They wanted to be the Beatles, but it just didn't happen. Boo Hoo. (NOT) The Beatles have achieved immortality through their music and their lives. No one can compare, and when I say no one, I mean not even the Stones.

[This Message Has Been Edited By Beatlesgal On July 29, 2002 09:32 AM]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


[This Message Has Been Edited By AmandaLennon On July 29, 2002 10:04 PM]
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2002, 09:02 PM   #28
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By AmandaLennon:
oh...this is like arguing about the gender of the angels. why gently bash the stones now over money comparisons(sp)? i´ve never seen this in my life!!!
and is such a blah-blah-blah to say they wanted to be the beatles, f you REALLY know their work and can see how thin their enormous irony was toward the beatles;
for them, it was all fun and no worries; but the beatles cared a lot about musical growth, but that does not diminish the rs as a band. they´re a lot of fun and rebel style and sex and wild!
c´mon... no one needs to compare them.
the rolling stones WERE the greatest rock 'n' roll band of the 60´s, now... the beatles ARE the greatest BAND of all times.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
The Love You Take Is Equal To The Love You Make
  Reply With Quote
Old Jul 29, 2002, 11:33 PM   #29
SleepyHead
Sun King
 
SleepyHead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 11, 2000
Location: Louisiana, USA
Posts: 9,705

Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

Was there a message forthcoming in those 2 previous quotes, AmandaLennon? If so, I missed it...

------------------

In Memory Of Robby
Our Lady's Psalter
Bearkat77's Beatlemaniac Page
Bearkat77's Tribute to John Lennon
Bearkat77's Tribute to Ringo Starr
SleepyHead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2002, 07:27 AM   #30
Magill
Sun King
 
Magill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 02, 2002
Location: Back to where I once belonged
Posts: 13,597

Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By Beatlesgal:
Ok Let's think about this for a second. While the Stones use their bold and moody attitudes to sell records, you rarely hear anything about the Beatles yet their stuff sales. What are people really paying for? With the Stones, I highly doubt it's the music. A few Stones' songs are worthy of listening to, but they aren't songs that you ponder and listen to over and over again. The Beatles are timeless. The Stones are just the wanna be boy band of the Sixties. They wanted to be the Beatles, but it just didn't happen. Boo Hoo. (NOT) The Beatles have achieved immortality through their music and their lives. No one can compare, and when I say no one, I mean not even the Stones.

[This Message Has Been Edited By Beatlesgal On July 29, 2002 09:32 AM]
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a matter of preference, really. I enjoy alot of the Stones music. I use to love my Made In The Shade cassette. It had a lot of their gems on it. I don't think that one's ever been reissued, though..darn it! But the Beatles will always be the superior group, by far. Everyone knows that.



------------------
Thanks for the lift, sailor!
Magill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2002, 08:11 AM   #31
Sgt.McCartney
Sun King
 
Sgt.McCartney's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 29, 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,996
Send a message via AIM to Sgt.McCartney
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones



Thought you might like a pic

------------------
Ryan: Oh we have great artist on this CD set.
Colin: The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who are all the people who will sue us if we use their songs on this CD
" Who's Line Is It Anyway? "

[This Message Has Been Edited By Sgt.McCartney On July 30, 2002 03:23 PM]
Sgt.McCartney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2002, 02:23 PM   #32
StrawberryShorty
Day Tripper
 
StrawberryShorty's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 06, 2002
Location: A Strawberry Field Over the Rainbow
Posts: 380
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

LOL @ BB and Magill's Bday posts!

------------------
Peace&Luv.
~Kristina

2morrow may rain so.. I'll follow the !
StrawberryShorty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 30, 2002, 04:52 PM   #33
trunks
Little Child
 
Join Date: Jul 22, 2002
Posts: 64
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

[quote]Originally Posted By beatlebangs1964:
[b]Beatles won. No contest.

that's the final result.nobody can beat them.



------------------
trunks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 31, 2002, 08:42 AM   #34
Harry Georgeson
Fool On The Hill
 
Join Date: Jun 15, 2002
Posts: 0
Default Re: The Beatles v.s The Rolling Stones

*ugh* I hate it when people compare these two marvellous groups- who became marvellous in their own right. They essentially began near the same time, it's just the Stones had a bit of a harder time making it big. While The Bealtes played mainly skiffle and more rockabilly, The Rolling Stones were deep in the blues. The BBC refused to let them play on a show back in their early days on the basis that their singer (the one and only MICK) sounded "too black".

So basically what I'm trying to say is, they're both phenomenal groups and... arguing who's better just doesnt work because they're different!

------------------
You all know I'm the sexy walrus. *wink wink*
Harry Georgeson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 14, 2009, 12:00 PM   #35
the ninth walrus
Old Brown Shoe
 
the ninth walrus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 09, 2009
Location: bloop
Posts: 3,754
Send a message via Yahoo to the ninth walrus
Default

the beatles are WAY better than the stones
the ninth walrus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2009, 11:17 AM   #36
Googoog'joob
Fool On The Hill
 
Googoog'joob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 20, 2009
Posts: 12
Default

The Beatles are easily better, but the 'Stones had some pretty fantastic moments too. Once they stopped trying to just compete with the Beatles, they produced 4 of the greatest rock albums of all time, a run which few artists could match (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street).
But of course the Stones were inferior. I love them but they're just a much weaker band. A much more interesting debate would be The Beatles vs. Dylan or The Velvet Underground.

Last edited by Googoog'joob : Dec 10, 2009 at 11:18 AM.
Googoog'joob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 10, 2009, 09:14 PM   #37
Dr Winston
Day Tripper
 
Dr Winston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 357
Default

The Beatles are another class altogether.
__________________
Remembering John Lennon
Dr Winston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2009, 10:44 AM   #38
PepperlandFrog
Banned
 
PepperlandFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 25, 2007
Location: hikaru no go
Posts: 967
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by the ninth walrus View Post
the beatles are WAY better than the stones
those are my thoughts exactly.
PepperlandFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2009, 02:16 PM   #39
Magical Mystery Girl
Little Child
 
Magical Mystery Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 11, 2009
Location: Montreal, Canada
Posts: 95
Send a message via MSN to Magical Mystery Girl Send a message via Yahoo to Magical Mystery Girl
Default

That's like comparing apples to oranges. They both had a very different sound.
Magical Mystery Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 18, 2009, 11:41 AM   #40
PepperlandFrog
Banned
 
PepperlandFrog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 25, 2007
Location: hikaru no go
Posts: 967
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Magical Mystery Girl View Post
That's like comparing apples to oranges. They both had a very different sound.
that's a fair statement the stones definitely were not a one-hit wonder band, had a strong sound, but an over-simplification nonetheless.
PepperlandFrog is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Advertisements

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Site Features
Search Links

  Advanced Search
Category Jump



BeatleMail

FREE E-MAIL
@ BEATLEMAIL.COM


Username


Password




New User Sign-Up!
Lost Password?
Beatles History




Donate
The costs of running our database and discussion forum are steadily rising. Any help we receive is greatly appreciated. Click HERE for more information about donating to BeatleLinks.
Extras
» Chat Room
» Current News
» Monthly Contest
» Interviews Database
» Random Site
» Banner Exchange
» F.A.Q.
» Advertise
» Credits
» Legal
» Contact Us
Copyright © 2000-2019 BeatleLinks
All Rights Reserved