And why not a traditional Beatles vs. Stones christmas poll?

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

  • Beatles

    Votes: 44 74.6%
  • Stones

    Votes: 15 25.4%

  • Total voters
    59
vampyrouss said:
To be honest I'd rather listen to ANYTHING else. But opinions are there to make others sick, wa-hey!

Ok, so I'll just pop in some N Sync or Billy Ray Cyrus and we'll use The White Album and Abbey Road as frisbees.
 
Ofcourse there could be more bands in the poll like Zappa, the Who, Pink Floyd and so on. But then it's not 'the classic' Beatles vs. Rolling Stones anymore. Moreover: polls in which you have to choose between the devil and the deep blue see are more interesting imo.
 
The Stones first couple of albums were great but then they became a clone of what music style was around at the time (remember they put makeup on in the middle of the glam rock/early Kiss days)..how pathetic. The Beatles by a mile. For originality, for timing and for Helter Skelter - The birth of Heavy Metal.
 
I'd state the birth of heavy metal with Zeppelin really. Actually that would be its conception (if we're follwing the reproduction metaphor here?). Its birth would be with Sabbath beyond a shadow of doubt.

Fair point with only having two artists, does make it slightly more interesting. Still Roger, John, Pete and Keith pwn them both.
 
no... as long as muddy waters is still around... all the music we hear today would eventually be created.
 
in limbow said:
No, without the Beatles there'd be no Stones, and none of your favorite bands would exist

Dumb argument.

First, you cannot say for a FACT that that is true, unless you have a time machine and could go back and eliminate the Beatles and record the effects. Second of all, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Bob Dylan, etc would still exist and would still influence people. Among them the Stones, Who, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Clapton, etc.

The Beatles wrote a few good tunes and were obviously highly influential but to label them the end-all-be-all of rock music is to understate the influence of a lot of their forerunners, contemporaries, and followers.
 
The Evil Toucan said:
Dumb argument.

First, you cannot say for a FACT that that is true, unless you have a time machine and could go back and eliminate the Beatles and record the effects. Second of all, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Bob Dylan, etc would still exist and would still influence people. Among them the Stones, Who, Zeppelin, Sabbath, Clapton, etc.

The Beatles wrote a few good tunes and were obviously highly influential but to label them the end-all-be-all of rock music is to understate the influence of a lot of their forerunners, contemporaries, and followers.

What other band openly experimented with studio trickery, effects, and drugs? Sure, if the Beatles didn't exist there still would be Dylan to influence all the songwriters but, quite simply, bands like Pink Floyd would NOT be around or would at least be very different if the Beatles didn't do all the things they did. No one had taken music that far, no one had reached where the Beatles where on Revolver to Abbey Road.
 
John, Paul and George are three of my all time favourite musicians along with Yngwie.

And just for all the Beatles fans in here, listen to 'While My Guitar Gently Weeps' by Yellow Matter Custard (Paul Gilbert on guitar).

Best guitar solo ever. And as someone on the Petrucci forums said, if you disagree, you are wrong!

KFK
 
So... everybody's favorite Beatles songs?

I love:
In My Life
Let it Be
Blue Jay Way
Fool on the Hill
Happiness is a Warm Gun
A Day in the Life
Something
You Never Give me Your Money
etc
 
The Evil Toucan said:
The Beach Boys. Everyone and their mother knows the Beatles were influenced by "Pet Sounds".


Actually the only reason Wilson even wrote pet sounds was because he wanted to produce something even close to the genius of Rubber Soul.

Love the Beach Boys though.