i have NEVER understood this seemingly obligatory comparison between the beatles and the stones. NEVER!! and i hear it everywhere. always have. to me, comparing the beatles to the stones is like comparing a mercedes mclaren 722 to a mazda rx8. granted, the rx8 (or, the stones) is something i'd be perfectly happy to drive around in, but the comparison, to me, is simply laughable. where in the hell was this comparison allowed to start? how many classic stones albums are regular people on the street able to name? how many members of the stones are regular people able to name? how many movies did the stones make? how many profoundly famous musicians cited the stones as the reason they got into music vs. the beatles?
beatles vs. stones? no comparison, in my view.
and by the way... the ONLY stones member i've EVER been interested in is charlie watts.
Comparing the beatles to the stones is apples and oranges... only from the stand point that the beatles suck balls... Why the comparison? Because beatles fans make stones fans wanna throw up. Beatles are weak and over hyped, and got a free pass to suck during the 60's and 70's as the darling lil bitches they were, wile the stones were constantly harassed.
As far as influence in the industry, they were both influenced by early rock, blues, ska, and reggae pioneers, (Sonny Boy Williamson [II], Muddy Waters, Peter Tosh, Rev. Gary Davis, Howlin' Wolf, Bo Diddley, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, The Flying Burrito Brothers, The Everly Brothers, Chuck Berry, Arthur Alexander, Bob Marley, Alexis Korner, jimi hinderix) and both influenced millions of bands, however the beatles are more of a early version of a boy band with soft pop lyrics that apeal to teenage girls, and inspired acts like new kids on the block, backstreet boys, and O town. How many beatles songs do you have in your ipod... none, they arn't relevant in anyway. Only one band i can think of that didn't suck that was influenced heavy by the beatles was oasis. Oasis stated that they would be bigger then the beatles... u know why, because it wasn't hard to be better then the beatles... Oasis is a far better band. I still have oasis on my ipod. I would bet that most modern rock bands would choose the stones as an influence, beatles have nothing in common with Korn, the clash, the specials, smashing pumpkins, red hot chili peppers, rage against the machine, metalica, the police, janes adiction, the cure, Lincoln park, U2, current bands just want the beatles commercial sucess, not their style.
The only innovator in the beatles was John Lennon because he was a peace loving hippie, and he had to distance himself from the other shallow douche bags in the band and no amount of money could get him to reunite with the other cowards in the beatles that wouldn't protest the vietnam war. He would have rather died broke with ugly ass yoko ono. btw... he was the one that created the song Imagine, by far the best song ever done by anyone in that band, and he did it solo.
How many movies did the beatles make that didn't suck... zero.. well ok... one.... ringo star made a great movie with peter sellers called The Magic Christian (1969) rent it its fantastic, so beatles fans may not like it. anyways it was sheer luck once again on ringo's part, and whats movies got to do with music? I could list a bunch of movies that mick jagger did, and the fact that he owns a film production studio however, i don't feel its relevant to this discussion
Stones on the other hand had great albums that are recognized and remembered in most top twenty albums of all time lists to name a few :Their Satanic Majesties Request ? Beggars Banquet ? Let It Bleed ? Sticky Fingers ? Exile on Main St. ? Goats Head Soup ? It's Only Rock 'n' Roll ? Black and Blue ? Some Girls ? if you say nobody remembers exile on main st, or beggers banquet your nuts. Besides, who cares about album names... ask people to name songs... songs people can still play rock out to and dance to at parties today, and they will name more good stone songs i guarantee it
Stones also still sell out stadium concerts by themselves, something that not many acts of today can do without having a huge lineup at a summer jam radio station type of show, while the beatles are resigned to having one legged bitches steal there money, mikael jackson owning the publishing rights to their music (because the beatles sold out commercially asap) and a lame vegas show, the cost is viewed as great and cant tour, because it wouldn't make money due to the fact that teenage girls of today don't care about the beatles, think they are lame, and there isn't enuf geezers that are interested because the beatles arnt rock n roll enuf because they made a bunch of watered down love songs, with poor musical talent like ringo star, and songs about LSD easily the lamest drug ever. Whereas kieth richards, is a great guitarist with his own signature style of strumming up on the off beat, one of the koolest moves in rock n roll history only surpassed by the james brown spits, or hendrix behind the head guitar. Oh yeah.. and how many dudes still sport the mop top haircut they sported in the sixty's?. yeah... that was real sexy.
btw, i don't need your support, i can handle myself as u may have noticed.... i'm more worried about you guys getting your feelings hurt and begin attacking me personally because u cant handle the truth.
george noory sucks
bumper music sucks
beatles suck
BigWorm