Music Man

I clearly stated "about" that time, and I specifically mentioned the year 1971.

As for what the ex-Beatles were doing as solo acts in the 1970's as compared to the Stones as a group, is absolutely irrelevant. You're making an apples and oranges comparison.

With well over one BILLION records sold worldwide, the Beatles completely blow away the Stones. The Stones have had over 36 years to try and catch up, but STILL can't come even remotely close in record sales.

As of 2007, the Beatles compilation album "1" is the largest selling album of the 21st century, in ANY genre of music.

The Stones have always been and will always be a distant second to the Beatles, and I say that as an old Stones fan who owns MANY of their recordings.

__________________
"Paranoid is just like an anchor. It really secures everything about the metal movement in one record. It's all there: the riffs, the vocal performance of Ozzy, the song titles, what the lyrics are about. It's just a classic defining moment."

--Rob Halford of Judas Priest

boo boo

We're comparing The Stones to The Beatles, not The Stones to The Beatles solo careers.


Remember that.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

I just think it`s unfair to claim the Beatles are better than the Stones because the Stones lost in it the 70s when the Beatles couldn`t even hold it together in that decade .So if we are comparing decades why not mention what they did elsewhere.

__________________

boo boo

Perhaps because they broke up, you're comparing a bands 70s material to a band that wasn't even together anymore during the 70s, so whos really being unfair here?

And Music Man, you're not really helping the Beatlemaniacs with their cause, why bring up record sales like it proves The Beatles are better?... Its not a very good case, and its a waste of everyones time. Besides there are thousands of valid reasons why The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones, use those.

And Big3, a good deal of The Beatles later material was pretty ahead of their time, can you really imagine a song like Tommorrow Never Knows being released in 1966?

And implying that The Beatles are the "lowest common denominator" is just plain retarded.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

Well not me , I didn`t bring it up.
The Beatles fan did

__________________

Strummer521

That's a fair point...although you compared the Beatles to the Stones as live acts, when the Beatles stopped touring before they were fully matured as a band and before their style was fully developed.

It seems that when albums are the everlasting representation of a band in top form and sounding exactly as they wanted to, quality of albums is a lot more important here than quality as a live act. After all, the album is what led Rock & Roll on the transition from youth fad to art.

Certainly the Stones were influential, but not in the forward-thinking way of the Beatles who blended pop perfectly into the mix and changed the genre of Rock forever. It's because of them that Rock music is as diverse and eclectic as it is today.

Urban Hat€monger ?

I think people underestimate the Stones when it comes to that.When the Beatles did it they changed direction totally yet when the Stones did it it sounded more natural.

The Stones took inspiration from R&B , Rock n Roll , Blues , Funk , Soul , Disco , Gospal , Pop , even punk & psychadelia (badly) and blended it into their music more effortlessly than the Beatles ever did.

Personally i`m a fan of psychadelia but I hate the way the Beatles incorperated it into their music. They basically diluted it into 3 minute pop nursary rhymes.Thats always been my biggest problem with the Beatles they may have incorperated many different influences into their music but to me it was really watered down , if a band does that now they get slated for it.
The way the Stones do it , it doesn`t sound diluted because it sounds like a natural progression to what they do already.

I`m not saying one way is better than the other but I think because of the way the Stones did it they get less credit.

__________________

boo boo

I always found The Stones to be very by the numbers,... Not really different from what Rock N Roll was already, just with a hipper/tougher image.

True, bands who try to be more diverse and "progressive" so to speak tend to be harshly slated by critics, and but these are the same people who think Guided By Voices make good music.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

The Unfan

Albums sells does not equal musical quality. This point is invalid.

I do like The Beatles' more experimental material over anything The Rolling Stones did.