Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Neapolitan · 07-06-2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

At the time The Rolling Stones were considered a main rival as they were promoted as that. They represented the rock alternative, and The Beatles the main pop group. Over time though perspective changes and people can get a wider view of the music. The Kinks in the late 60s were very underrated, they still are. The Beach Boys had some acclaim back then, but they have more now. Others like The Rolling Stones, Dylan and Elvis probably had more acclaim back then than they do now. With the perspective of time we can have a fuller view of music from a period.

The Beatles and The Stones were acquaintances. The Stones were promoted as the bad boys of Rock, the rivalry comes mainly from the fans, and the question been raging like the Pepsi vs Coke kind of rage for 40-something years now.

I doubt Elvis lost any (maybe as time goes on) but there are just as many Elvis impersonators than any other entertainment icon I can think of. Really you are getting into territory I have no idea about: how popular bands are seen then and now. Most bands of that era are forgotten like DC5, The Hollies, Jerry and the Pacemakers, The Searchers, The Tremeloes, The Yardbirds etc etc. And for some reason The Beatles and The Who fans act like their band are the only ones that every existed - which is pretty annoying. Depending who you talk to the UK only had one band in the 60's The Beatles or The Who. The Jam out-Whoed The Who in the 70's anyway. A band like Joy Division probably have more fans now than then, well at least as far as bands trying to imitate their sound.