The Beatles or the Rolling Stones ?

tszirmay wrote: NaturalScience wrote: 1.  This isn't in the right section. 2.  Please try to keep the flaming to a minimum. Thanks.   With all due apologies, this is the correct section as we are asked to choose between the good boys and the bad boys.

I have no idea what you are talking about.  This poll was placed in Prog Polls, but neither of these bands are prog bands.  It is therefore in the wrong forum.  This was directed not at you, but at the creator of the thread.

Epignosis wrote: I don't much care for either, but The Beatles had talent and songwriting skill.  And influence. What about the Stones?  Um...booze?  Did you catch Mick Jagger's halftime performance during the Super Bowl a few years back?

The Stones had talent, songwriting skill, and influence as well.  Also you shouldn't base your hatred of the Stones on a terrible super bowl performance when they are at a very old age.  I mean if thats the case of basis the Beatles must SUCK a great deal.  Look at all the garbage Paul has been putting out since 1970! You would think having worked with George and George, and John for several years, and practicing for over 4 decades, you would be able to write good songs. 

micky wrote: tszirmay wrote: Talk of no contest. One of the main reasons I have loved prog is my profound 40 year distaste for the Stones , a group of thugs, profiteers and non-musicians (I repeat NON-MUSICIANS)  that cater to ultra primitive innuendoes that aren't even clever. disregard my earlier PM

Stones, Non-Musicians? Yet the only considered "musician" in the Beatles was Paul. 

Sacred 22 wrote: Oh The Beatles, a band that was heavily groomed much like the Monkees were. I think much of what the Beatles allegedly wrote was way over their heads considering they started out as a basic blues band and then out of no where they started spinning out hit after hit. They did not even own the rights to 'their' music. The music was owned by a fellow by the name of Theodor Adorno who was incidentally a composer by the way. Paul McCartney had the chance to buy the music but Michael Jackson out bided him for it. I don't know about you, but if I was the composer of my music and someone else owned the rights to that music, I would do anything in my power to get it back unless of course I never wrote the music in the first place......   That leaves the Stones then.

The Beatles WERE "groomed" when after they had formed and written some tunes that were obviously enjoyed by several people, as to make them more marketable.  They were no where near the level of "groomed" as the Monkees. 

Yes they started as a simple rock and roll group playing some of their original songs, and a good amount of covers, yet over time they developed into an incredible, artistic group.  The transition can be heard from their first, to their last album.  I'd say they knew what they were doing,  but they did indeed receive help and advice from George Martin, Geoff Emerick, and the other closely related people.  (Remember the Stones also started as an R&B cover group before writing their own songs and eventual masterpieces).

I guess its fair to base your opinion of the Beatles on completely bogus conspiracy theories.  However, there is more true information in the following quote:

"In 1963 Lennon and McCartney agreed to assign their song publishing rights to Northern Songs, a company created by music publisher Dick James. The company was administered by James' own company Dick James Music. Northern Songs went public in 1965, with Lennon and McCartney each holding 15% of the company's shares Dick James and the company's chairman, Charles Silver, held a controlling 37.5%. In 1969, following a failed attempt by Lennon and McCartney to buy the company, James and Silver sold Northern Songs to British TV company Associated TeleVision (ATV), from which Lennon and McCartney received stock.

In 1985, after a short period in which the parent company was owned by Australian business magnate Robert Holmes à Court, ATV Music was sold to Michael Jackson for a reported $47 million (trumping a joint bid by McCartney and Yoko Ono), including the publishing rights to over 200 songs composed by Lennon and McCartney."

In any case, I love both these bands.  They all have their own great history, songs, albums, etc.  In the end, I find myself going back to the Stones more and more.  I'm quite surprised by the amount of Stones hate on the forums, but I guess it happens. 

Between 1964 and 1972 the Stones created great albums.  Some were obviously better than others, but all were still great (yes even the Sgt. Peppers inspired Their Satanic Majesties...). Following Exile on Main Street the stones started falling apart, but they still managed to produce good albums like Goat's Head Soup, the uneven Its Only Rock and Roll, the interesting Jamming with Edward, Black and Blue, Some Girls, and their last mostly good album Emotional Rescue. 

I really don't see the need for bickering about these two great bands.

The Rolling Stones.

I only like one Rolling Stones album, but Their Satanic Majestoies Request is IMO better than anything The Beatles did except Abbey Road.

Sacred 22 wrote: Sacred 22 wrote: Oh The Beatles, a band that was heavily groomed much like the Monkees were. I think much of what the Beatles allegedly wrote was way over their heads considering they started out as a basic blues band and then out of no where they started spinning out hit after hit. They did not even own the rights to 'their' music. The music was owned by a fellow by the name of Theodor Adorno who was incidentally a composer by the way. Paul McCartney had the chance to buy the music but Michael Jackson out bided him for it. I don't know about you, but if I was the composer of my music and someone else owned the rights to that music, I would do anything in my power to get it back unless of course I never wrote the music in the first place......   That leaves the Stones then.   Here is a good read http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_04.htm

I love the Beatles a lot, but over the years I've started to like the Rolling Stones better. Albums like Beggars Banquet, Stick Fingers and Let it Bleed are among my favorite albums ever.

Sacred 22 wrote:   Here is a good read http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_04.htm

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  What a ridiculous, good read.

Sacred 22 wrote: BroSpence wrote: Sacred 22 wrote:   Here is a good read http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_committee300_04.htm HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.  What a ridiculous, good read.   are you sure?

So very sure.  Dr. John Coleman seems to be confused with his "information" in terms of it being factual, intelligent, and with its placement in time.  It is also said that the Rolling Stones were also players in the little....whatever you want to call that rubbish..

tszirmay wrote: Talk of no contest. One of the main reasons I have loved prog is my profound 40 year distaste for the Stones , a group of thugs, profiteers and non-musicians (I repeat NON-MUSICIANS)  that cater to ultra primitive innuendoes that aren't even clever. Ape music and that is not even kind to monkeys (: They even had a song about themselves) Their last decent album was with Brian Jones (but they drowned him!) . Yuck , extremely overated , basic garbage . Even as a rock band , they suck stones. Gall bladder pain.I could go on for years with facts to back my disdain . Oh well!  The Beatles on the other hand, exactly the polar opposite.

Your f**king kidding?
how can you say that the stones are non.musicians ?!?!?!
and also primitive?
well... you can stay in ypur little world of selfishness listening "REAL" musicans all day

Rocktopus wrote: Mick Jagger's a fantastic vocalist and a frontman. Anyone seen him in Nic Roeg's Performance?

agreed, one of the best, his solo stuff is great too