The Beatles or the Stones? A scientific pole. (1 Viewer)

[sonicboom]

I really want to comment. I mean really. Did you do this on purpose?

Feel free to comment, no science will be harmed in the study.

I think The Beatles is mass consumption music, while The Rolling Stones band are more blue collar blues. That just my take on the matter.

 

[St. Widge]

Because head trauma isn't funny?

I think it can be. I mean, you are pretty amusing. But, I feel the same way about people who think the Beatles and Stones are great bands. I wonder what sort of childhood trauma, physical or mental, causes that? Maybe it's the danger of growing up with Hippies for parents?

 

[Dago]

I think it can be. I mean, you are pretty amusing. But, I feel the same way about people who think the Beatles and Stones are great bands. I wonder what sort of childhood trauma, physical or mental, causes that? Maybe it's the danger of growing up with Hippies for parents?

Ease up on the throttle...i would hate for you to get an aneurysm

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

Feel free to comment, no science will be harmed in the study.

I think The Beatles is mass consumption music, while The Rolling Stones band are more blue collar blues. That just my take on the matter.

Okay. You win. The lab coat comes off and I throw away hours of research. Youtube may sue me for breach of contract.

Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is not a good example of Paul's work with The Beatles. His beauties were Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby.

People consumed The Beatles en masse because they were the best band in the world.
I like The Rolling Stones but early on they asked John and Paul to write songs for them. And as far as being "blue collar" the Stones grew up with a lot more money than The Beatles did.

 

[Tapxe]

or have an opinion guy....

Did you consider maybe just not adding to the conversation in such a negative fashion or at all?

A statement like, "I know many like these bands, but they are not my cup of tea" will get your point across without attempting to demean someone else's opinion.

The way you put it is exactly how SC500 characterized it. They do not suck as they are both clearly talented. You simply don't enjoy them which is fine as people have different likes.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

So, I tend to think that most of the stuff the Beatles did was more or less pop music without a huge amount of meaning behind them. ....... Admittedly they did more serious stuff later on, but I never considered anything they did to be particularly deep or though provoking. Of course, I'm sure some will disagree.

Yes, some will disagree.

It’s one thing to have a difference of opinion, i can respect that, really i can.. but some of what you purport is truly head-scratching, to say the least... ‘Not a huge amount of meaning’? Not ‘particularly deep or thought-provoking’?? With all due respect, i’d have to submit that you have barely scratched the surface of the Beatles catalogue.

If you’re so inclined, i’d recommend that you YouTube just a few of the following songs.. of course, you can still draw ur own conclusions afterwards; you may not go in with an open mind, and of course you’re not an impressionable young guy being influenced by these lyrics and music for the first time.. but it’s possible you could see them a little differently:


(Anyone else feel free to add to my list of Beatles tunes that might just have a smidge of depth or meaning)


- A Day in the Life

- Revolution

- Norwegian Wood

- In My Life

- let It Be

- Blackbird

- Come Together

 

[sonicboom]

Okay. You win. The lab coat comes off and I throw away hours of research. Youtube may sue me for breach of contract.

Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da is not a good example of Paul's work with The Beatles. His beauties were Yesterday and Eleanor Rigby.

People consumed The Beatles en masse because they were the best band in the world.
I like The Rolling Stones but early on they asked John and Paul to write songs for them. And as far as being "blue collar" the Stones grew up with a lot more money than The Beatles did.

Them fighting words! Just kidding. I really have no strong feelings towards either band, they both have some great songs, which is truly the better band is strictly preference. I didn't know there was a debate on who the second greatest band was, since everyone knows Nirvana can't be beat!

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

Yes, some will disagree.

It’s one thing to have a difference of opinion, i can respect that, really i can.. but some of what you purport is truly head-scratching, to say the least... ‘Not a huge amount of meaning’? Not ‘particularly deep or thought-provoking’?? With all due respect, i’d have to submit that you have barely scratched the surface of the Beatles catalogue.

If you’re so inclined, i’d recommend that you YouTube just a few of the following songs.. of course, you can still draw ur own conclusions afterwards; you may not go in with an open mind, and of course you’re not an impressionable young guy being influenced by these lyrics and music for the first time.. but it’s possible you could see them a little differently:


(Anyone else feel free to add to my list of Beatles tunes that might just have a smidge of depth or meaning)


- A Day in the Life

- Revolution

- Norwegian Wood

- In My Life

- let It Be

- Blackbird

- Come Together

It's just easier to post this great article from Rolling Stone.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-lists/100-greatest-beatles-songs-154008/

 

[St. Widge]

Yes, some will disagree.

It’s one thing to have a difference of opinion, i can respect that, really i can.. but some of what you purport is truly head-scratching, to say the least... ‘Not a huge amount of meaning’? Not ‘particularly deep or thought-provoking’?? With all due respect, i’d have to submit that you have barely scratched the surface of the Beatles catalogue.

If you’re so inclined, i’d recommend that you YouTube just a few of the following songs.. of course, you can still draw ur own conclusions afterwards; you may not go in with an open mind, and of course you’re not an impressionable young guy being influenced by these lyrics and music for the first time.. but it’s possible you could see them a little differently:


(Anyone else feel free to add to my list of Beatles tunes that might just have a smidge of depth or meaning)


- A Day in the Life

- Revolution

- Norwegian Wood

- In My Life

- let It Be

- Blackbird

- Come Together

I mean, it's impossible to not hear all of those songs over the years and honestly, the ideas they express aren't very thought provoking to me. They express very simplistic philosophies that don't really work in the real world. They are in a word, naive.

But, in the interest of giving it a shot, I looked up and read the lyrics to all those songs. I'm not listening to them on you tube because I honestly don't like their music and I think you have a better shot at understanding from reading the lyrics. Having done so, the only one of those songs that has interesting lyrics to me is A Day in the Life and I'm not certain it has any meaning at all. But, I'm not sure what the below means. But it may have a context I don't understand because I'm not English:

"read the news today, oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
I'd love to turn you"

It reads like jibberish to me, but maybe there is some context to Blackburn, Lancashire and "holes" that I do not know.

 

[sonicboom]

I consider a "pop" band to be a band that is primarily making music for the purpose of making money or making music that they think will be popular. Of course, all bands do that to some extent, but some do it more than others. And there are, of course, grey areas like pop rock, pop punk, pop country, etc.

So, I tend to think that most of the stuff the Beatles did was more or less pop music without a huge amount of meaning behind them. They were catchy songs and they were a bunch of good looking guys which is how their career got started. Admittedly they did more serious stuff later on, but I never considered anything they did to be particularly deep or though provoking. Of course, I'm sure some will disagree.

As far as who is a better pop band than the Beatles? Probably nobody. The only thing that comes close is Michael Jackson and he's a solo, not a band. And the Beatles are clearly better since they wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. (BTW, I also really dislike Michael Jackson's work.) Still, there is merit to being the best pop band or pop solo performer out there. It's just not something I care to listen to. And fans of the Beatles and Jackson both seem to assume that everyone must like the Beatles and Michael Jackson or there is something wrong with them. I mean, I'm a huge fan of The Clash and I think they are better than the Beatles, Stones, or Michael Jackson. I think The Clash are the perfect example of a band that always had a deeper meaning in their music but also somehow became very popular. But I get that a lot of people don't really like them and don't feel it's necessary to assume they have incontrovertable merit to everyone.

Yeah, The Clash is one my favorites. I think they are underrated for sure.

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

I mean, it's impossible to not hear all of those songs over the years and honestly, the ideas they express aren't very thought provoking to me. They express very simplistic philosophies that don't really work in the real world. They are in a word, naive.

But, in the interest of giving it a shot, I looked up and read the lyrics to all those songs. I'm not listening to them on you tube because I honestly don't like their music and I think you have a better shot at understanding from reading the lyrics. Having done so, the only one of those songs that has interesting lyrics to me is A Day in the Life and I'm not certain it has any meaning at all. But, I'm not sure what the below means. But it may have a context I don't understand because I'm not English:

"read the news today, oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
I'd love to turn you"

It reads like jibberish to me, but maybe there is some context to Blackburn, Lancashire and "holes" that I do not know.

Opinions differ. I consider this their best work. Not that I'm unique because many people agree.

I believe the lyrics to be a brilliant commentary on an ordinary but somehow bizarre life we are all sharing.

The only rock lyrics I like more are Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue".

 

[UndeadSnoopy]

Them fighting words! Just kidding. I really have no strong feelings towards either band, they both have some great songs, which is truly the better band is strictly preference. I didn't know there was a debate on who the second greatest band was, since everyone knows Nirvana can't be beat!

I love Nirvana. But no. Not even close.

 

[sonicboom]

I love Nirvana. But no. Not even close.

 

[Mr. Blue Sky]

I mean, it's impossible to not hear all of those songs over the years and honestly, the ideas they express aren't very thought provoking to me. They express very simplistic philosophies that don't really work in the real world. They are in a word, naive.

But, in the interest of giving it a shot, I looked up and read the lyrics to all those songs. I'm not listening to them on you tube because I honestly don't like their music and I think you have a better shot at understanding from reading the lyrics. Having done so, the only one of those songs that has interesting lyrics to me is A Day in the Life and I'm not certain it has any meaning at all. But, I'm not sure what the below means. But it may have a context I don't understand because I'm not English:

"read the news today, oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall
I'd love to turn you"

It reads like jibberish to me, but maybe there is some context to Blackburn, Lancashire and "holes" that I do not know.

I think your problem is that you see things in a way that is too literal.

Besides, you cant expect the songs to have the same impact by reading the lyrics.. they are songs, not poems- they’re meant to be heard, not read, for chrissakes.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I consider a "pop" band to be a band that is primarily making music for the purpose of making money or making music that they think will be popular. Of course, all bands do that to some extent, but some do it more than others. And there are, of course, grey areas like pop rock, pop punk, pop country, etc.

So, I tend to think that most of the stuff the Beatles did was more or less pop music without a huge amount of meaning behind them. They were catchy songs and they were a bunch of good looking guys which is how their career got started. Admittedly they did more serious stuff later on, but I never considered anything they did to be particularly deep or though provoking. Of course, I'm sure some will disagree.

As far as who is a better pop band than the Beatles? Probably nobody. The only thing that comes close is Michael Jackson and he's a solo, not a band. And the Beatles are clearly better since they wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. (BTW, I also really dislike Michael Jackson's work.) Still, there is merit to being the best pop band or pop solo performer out there. It's just not something I care to listen to. And fans of the Beatles and Jackson both seem to assume that everyone must like the Beatles and Michael Jackson or there is something wrong with them. I mean, I'm a huge fan of The Clash and I think they are better than the Beatles, Stones, or Michael Jackson. I think The Clash are the perfect example of a band that always had a deeper meaning in their music but also somehow became very popular. But I get that a lot of people don't really like them and don't feel it's necessary to assume they have incontrovertable merit to everyone.

im almost blocked you after the michael jackson thing, but i then realized that was a cry for help so here we are (kidding, but only kinda)

• there's really not much difference between the way the beatles started and the way the clash did (working class nobodies in tiny clubs) - the beatles just had no predecessor and the clash were revolting against a decade of beatles ubiquity
• the fact that the monkees were created as the 'pop' version of The Beatles makes it hard to take your 'pop' definition seriously - the beatles were avant garde, they were just doing it in a vacuum

i had a good 2 decade run of assuming mass appeal meant compromised quality - and often those things go hand in hand, but it is not a fait accompli - no reason to deride Harry Potter or GoT or Marvel or Star Wars bc millions love them
yes many people loved the beatles bc other people loved the beatles
but also many people hate the beatles bc other people loved them
Television catapulted the beatles like MTV catapulted Michael Jackson (just like the victrola catapulted enric caruso)
none of those should be faulted for that