For awhile the band that was beating them all was the Dave Clark 5.

^^^
Yep. I was a huge fan.

quote:

Originally posted by Blackmore:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:
They didn't really come into their own, live-wise, until Brian Jones was fired and Mick Taylor came on board.

Though "Little Mick" wasn't with the band that long, he helped them turn a corner and put them on the trajectory that continues through this day. He also co-wrote my favorite Stones song, Time Waits for No One" though he got no credit for it. They haven't played it in a concert since he left the band.

Mick Taylor remains one of my favorite guitar players of all time. He is also said to have co-written Sway, Winter, and Moonlight Mile. i was fortunate to see them when Taylor was with the band; they were at their zenith during those years. I have nothing against Ron Wood at all, in fact he’s a talented artist in addition to being a very competent musician; however, the Stones became pretty pedestrian after Taylor left.

Hmmm.

I vastly, vastly, immeasurably so, prefer Zeppelin, Floyd and Sabbath to either the Beatles or Stones.

But I suppose I like them both about equality... equally meh, mostly, with some standouts each.

I think if either of them came along now no one would care much, unlike Floyd and Sabbath and Zeppelin who brought truly different twists to the same tropes. The Stones and Beatles are your garden variety Brit honkeys doing their take on American black blues. At least Floyd and Sabbath did new things with it.

The Beafles and Stones are who they are by way of lucky timing as much as anything, IMO.

I especially like about 6-8 songs from each. Beyond that I think it's mostly hype.

(am 50yo, fwiw)

When the Beetles first arrived on the scene, I was about 15. My musician friends and I considered them lightweights aimed at teeny bopper girls. We thought them silly, juvenile and effeminate. They had good harmony but we just couldn’t take them seriously. They made pre teen girls scream and wet their pants.

The Stones on the other hand got our attention. They were bad boys and their blues based music was cool.

Then the Beetles came out with Rubber Soul. We began to be impressed. These guys really are creative, we thought! Not great but pretty damn good!

From then on they began to do amazing things and very creative. We wondered “What happened?” They went from silly “bubble gummers” to a serious and amazing band.

Some music historians say Dylan, an admirer, influenced them during his first visit. He convinced them it was ok to let loose and write serious stuff. Let their creativity loose and to hell with pop industry conventions. He saw their potential and talent and convinced them to unleash it. They did and were no longer a bubble gummer band.

Where most bands were tightly managed by industry and usually had only one hit song per album by management design, the Beatles took charge of their own recording practices and churned out albums full of great songs. They were excellent composers and musicians. Their songs were timeless. Too bad egos got in the way.

I respect what they did and think they were one of the most creative and important forces in the music world.

I still like their music.

Given a choice, I prefer the Stones. Not the Genius creators, but a hell of a band. I prefer their rougher edge. Rock shouldn’t be too refined. It still needs to come outta the garages of good ol boys. Not too smooth. A little harsh.

The Stones helped save American Blues. It had faded in the US only to be brought back and reintroduced by Stones, Clapton and other Brits. Hendrix had to go to England to find someone interested in his blues based music.

Historians say Brit rockers of that generation learned to play music by listening to old American 78 rpm blues records found in used record stores. Old American blues artists like Robt Johnson. It’s thought the records were left behind by American servicemen from the south during WW2.

The Stones, Cream, Clapton’s band and many other had a blues tint that American kids liked.

The Stones just did it for many of us.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The Stones and Beatles are your garden variety Brit honkeys doing their take on American black blues.

This part just sounds like you haven't listened to anything the Beatles did after 1965.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
The Stones and Beatles are your garden variety Brit honkeys doing their take on American black blues.

This is equivalent to saying Led Zeppelin is just a garden variety metal band, one stating this would obviously have no clue to Zeppelin whatsoever.

I lost any and all interest in the Beatles until Sgt. Pepper. My favorite on that album is "When I'm sixty-four", at fifteen that seemed a million years away.

I still prefer the Stones though.

I should have included in my earlier response that of the "British Invasion" the group the captivated me was Cream and not either the Beatles or Stones.

Yeah I loved Jack Bruce and Clapton. I first listened to the Yardbirds.

quote:

Originally posted by ZSMICHAEL:
Yeah I loved Jack Bruce and Clapton. I first listened to the Yardbirds.

How about Alexis Korner? Heard him in Battersea Park in 1972.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexis_Korner

I'm not a big fan of either, but I'd have to say that the Beatles were more innovative, creative and impactful on the music that came after them. From song structure and composition to music engineering and production to fashion and image, the Beatles were far more important to the music world than the Stones.

Of the two, I'd go with the Stones. Of that era, I'd go with The Who and, Pink Floyd.

There's only a handful of Beatle tunes I like however, I do respect their influence on music. I won't celebrate them but, they had an impact, and they'll go down as one of the great what-if's in history.

I like more of the Beatles stuff.

I like the Stones stuff that I like more.

Where does The Who fit in? The Who was my first ever concert, so I'm biased.

^^^
The Who was late to the party. The Rock Opera Tommy was pretty cool. Eleven of their fans got crushed to death at a concert in Cincinatti.

Stones. No contest for me.

So many beloved movies or TV series have a Stones track in there somewhere. Not so with the Beatles.
That's just an observation, but I've long thought it implies a certain superiority.

1. beatles
2. stones * tie * Zepplin
3. beach boys * tie* z.z.top

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:
So many beloved movies or TV series have a Stones track in there somewhere. Not so with the Beatles.
That's just an observation, but I've long thought it implies a certain superiority.

Actually it may be the opposite.

It has long been known in the film and marketing world that it has always been very difficult to license an actual Beatles song into a film TV show, or commercial. In the past, it was not too much of a problem to get rights to a song and have others perform it since McCartney did not own the publishing, which apparently changed in 2017. But to get use of the actual recordings goes through a tough process of approval by McCartney, Yoko Ono, Ringo, and Olivia Harrison. And apparently the prevailing opinion of all parties is that they do not want to dilute their property. The Beatles brand is one of the most lucrative ones in show business.

quote:

Originally posted by Keystoner:
Where does The Who fit in? The Who was my first ever concert, so I'm biased.

Way above the Dave Clark 5

I saw them touring “Who’s Next,” and that show ranks among the top 3 of live shows I’ve seen. Funny, now that you bring them up, they had arguably the best bass player in rock history, one of the best drummers and lead singers, and a hugely talented Townshend as primary creative force. I don’t listen to them now though, and haven’t for a long time.