The Beatles

[slet]

[quote="ragingflea002 (Flea)"] Dude, Slet.....
The Beatles were soft at the beginning, then more or less lost their pop sound near the end. Their image also changed to where they were the long haired grungie outfitted rockers. Their sound changed, as I said, from pop to a more subtle dark imagery. In the end, they didn't have their original sound.
Almost to the point where it was "grungy".
Yes, the Beatles paved the road to a good lot of today's and yesterday's bands. Fallen listed Ozzy. Without the Beatles, the Rolling Stones may not have made it(the British wave of rock occured after the Beatles came across the pond. If they didn't come across, the albums wouldn't have sold as well and we'd be listening to more music reminiscent of Elvis than The Stones and Beatles).
So, it's not bullshit.
As for influences, AC/DC and Ramones. Ramones wanted to recreate pre Beatles and early Beatles from their youth.
They failed, but the inspiration is still there.

Tell me Lexar, can you find a Beatles song that was so controversial that they had to change the words in order to be allowed to perform it live? Did the Beatles ever had an album cover that needed to be censored? I don't think so. [/quote]
The Rolling Stones are the biggest rock n' roll band ever (sales wise, fan wise, audience wise, not saying they were the best per se), no way do the ow this to the Beatles. Sure the Beatles being the good guys helped, cuz the stones created an opposite image, but the Beatles adepted just as much to the Stones as the other way around.

And like Fallen said, I'm not saying the Beatles suck because they made soft rock and the Stones made harder rock. BUt it's a fact that the Stones used heavier guitar playing and were more a rockband then the Beatles.



[quote]ringo just OWNED the stones.

In other words, that's not exactly a fair comparison, the stones had their stages like the beatles did.[/quote]

The image you posted is the very first single the Stones ever made, so I wouldn't say that that picture resembles the Stones very well. It's about style on stage and of stage, about the way they behave. Fact is that the Stones grew their hair long because you weren't supposed to do that at that time. Mick wore sweaters which were considered 'girlish', but he got away with it and created a hype with it. The Beatles were always more politically correct, dressing nice, behaving nice on stage and ofstage, not doing drugs and drinking (at least not as much and as obvious as the Stones did). Mick was the first person to ran around on a stage, while it was common for a singer to just stand by his mic during a show.
The Stones were simply had a more rebel appeareance then the Beatles had.

[Beatlechick90]

Ok, that post was so wrong I don't know where to start.

1. The Beatles started the long hair trend. Their former bass player Stuart Sutcliffe's girlfriend gave them those moptop haircuts. They may seem like nothing today, but at the time they were scandalous.
2. The Beatles were far from politically correct. Saying they were bigger than Jesus, encouraging people to do drugs on TV (these both happened in 1966)
3. The Beatles' stage antics were pretty odd for their time too. Sure on the Ed Sullivan show they just bopped around and shook their moptops, but have you ever seen Shea Stadium footage? John playing the piano with his elbows. Not to mention they stopped touring 1966, which was really the year they started to evolve.

Interesting thingie: One of the great urban legends is that George Harrison got the guys from Decca (the label that originally turned down the Beatles) to listen to this great new band called the Rolling Stones. And that's how the Stones got their deal with Decca. Don't know if that's true or not, but the Beatles and the Stones were actually mutual admirers, as were The Beatles and the Beach Boys (And I DON'T want to hear any Beach-Boy-bashing because Pet Sounds and Smile are masterpieces, ok?)
_________________
[url=http://dollyrockersinc.piczo.com][img]http://pic.piczo.com/img/i122379787_59088_3.gif[/img][/url]

[fallenangel]

:huh: And did anyone say the Beatles were squeaky clean? No. But the Stones were still [i]more[/i]. They're just different; no one is saying the Stones are better because of that. Hell, they're two completely different bands and aren't even good comparisons. Now I don't even remember what the thread's about.

No one ever said the Beatles were bad or somehow worse for not being rabid drug fiends, rolling around on stage and throwing television sets out windows every night. They are what they are, no need to get defensive for anything that's been said because most of it (from boths sides) is true. No one here is [i]against[/i] the Beatles.
_________________
"I care about people as much as I care about lawn furniture" - Dexter/Michael C. Hall

[Talin]

Yes, I love The Beatles. They are so cool, I grew up listening to The Beatles. I'm probaly the only 14-year-old person that likes them, but they are so good. Go Beatles!!