quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

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 ChuckFinley:
The Beatles hold their position in history, no doubt. Actually thought that recent movie "Yesterday" (2019) actually showcased a lot of their enduring messaging in their music very well. Clearly not a great live band.

The Stones will always have that "edge" over the Beatles. Initial stuff way cool. Uneven since.

The Who, plain and simple, in "the day" blew both of them off the map when performing live and, when at their best, in the discussion of greatest live bands in history. Unfortunately, Moon's addiction problems and demons after he hit Kim and she left took a massive toll on the band, its performances some nights (look up a drummer named Halpin), and ultimately the life and direction of the band.

There is also a basis for direct comparison between the Stones and the Who performing live. The Stones, Clapton, the Who and others got together and did a video recorded performance set over 2 days called "The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus". The Stones organized it, in 1968. Jagger was jealous that the Who outperformed the Stones and so sat on the masters until it was finally released in 1996.

From someone who knew them all, the director of Rock and Roll Circus, Michale Lindsay-Hogg said, "the Beatles wrote about love, the Rolling Stones wrote about sex, and Pete [The Who] wrote about society". That's as good a summary as I've ever seen it put.

Each of the three of them for those three elements could be considered pillars of rock and roll. Live performance, each at their peak? Hands down, the Who. Top 1/3 of live shows? The Who. To be entirely honest... the one who could have the show most fall apart? Also the Who. But still, the greatest live -> the Who.

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:

quote:

Originally posted by oddball:

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.

Beatles stuff is hard to get permission for, accepted.
Now then, take the Stones song out of one of your faves and put a beatles tune in its place.
If it still works for you just as well then I guess we're just that much different.

quote:

Originally posted by apprentice:
Now then, take the Stones song out of one of your faves and put a beatles tune in its place.
If it still works for you just as well then I guess we're just that much different.

quote:

Originally posted by divil:
Not keen on the Beatles. Stones for me

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:
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.