What band was more influentail to the world, and music?

[leevitalone1]

Obviously opinions vary, but as far as I’m concerned there’s no contest. Beatles, all the way. I’ll be 54 in April, but like most of us, I don’t think my age makes any difference.

ya I disagree on age, you had to have experienced the whole thing- from start to end. For me, it was a clip on late night TV of them doing the head shake in "She loves you" it was meant as a joke, in 2 months time they had taken the world. Big joke ha? me I was 68 in Jan,

 

[4-earredwonder]

Blimey O'Reiley! Certainly having an influence now! The last album was pretty crap though? Not that I even listened to it...

It's strange how modern artists aren't going down the album route nowadays?! All down to streaming I guess...

I actually think that because The Beatles and their peers did release albums it only encouraged them to write better songs, and thus made them more influential...

Actually, Master Smithers, the Beatles' era ushered in the singer/songwriter album concept as prior to that period, we were experiencing the hit single mentality. Funny how trends change because that same singer/songwriter concept is now under 'revision,' as streaming and being able to pick single tracks via MP3 downloads have altered our perceptions.

So what's Swifty Smithers drinking tonight ........ what exotic ale?

 

[Mesozoic Mike]

The Beatles. The only group I can listen to no matter what mood I'm in.

 

[dr. simple]

ya I disagree on age, you had to have experienced the whole thing- from start to end. For me, it was a clip on late night TV of them doing the head shake in "She loves you" it was meant as a joke, in 2 months time they had taken the world. Big joke ha? me I was 68 in Jan,

I guess I misunderstood the original question.

 

[GOS]

I guess I misunderstood the original question.

Typical sign of age....

 

[leevitalone1]

Typical sign of age....

I'm starting a new gang "the Gerry's" on pension day, we'll get the old girls and terrorize the town, with our walkers and canes and scooters.

 

[CPR]

The Beatles. They teach "History of The Beatles" in colleges now. I havn't heard of any "History of The Rolling Stones" classes. (But the Mick Taylor years are epic!)

To me the '69-'73 LIVE Stones concerts were the greatest things I've ever seen; I'm 67, & have seen them all. Anyone who has seen Mick Taylor with the Stones, during that period, will understand. Today, they're a shell of what they were; actually, after Keith fell out of the tree, it's been downhill since then
I LOVE both, but for me, the LIVE Stones were WAY better than any Beatles show, during that period
The bootlegs from the '73 European tour were amazing; get a copy of Europe '73, & listen to Gimme Shelter, & YCAGWYW; enough said!

 

[5.1 4 Life]

My pick is The Beatles!

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I LOVE both, but for me, the LIVE Stones were WAY better than any Beatles show, during that period

Considering there were no live Beatles shows during that period, I'd have to say that you are 100% correct. But the question wasn't who put on the best show, it was who was most influential in the music world.

 

[admsh]

Oh I'll have to go with the Beatles, hands down. I mean, they were a major influence on the Stones themselves. The Stones' second single was written by McCartney. No doubt the Stones were the original bad boys, and that in itself was pioneering and influential - Lennon always envied that in them, and it became what rock stardom is all about later on down the road. But really, if we're discussing the impact on music, no one could touch the Beatles until 66-67 and even then it was still a different league.

And to those who take it back further, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis - of course, we all stand on the shoulders of giants. But the leaps forward with Please Please Me, and then with A Hard Day's Night, and then again with Help, and then again with Revolver and Rubber Soul, it's just immeasurable. Even today, listening to music of the period, these boys were in a different universe.

I love the Stones by the way

Does age really matter when it comes to good music?

 

[JonUrban]

One thing about Beatles/Stones, and here 50 years later I am far less likely to listen to Beatles music than I ever have been (especially in 2.0), and yes the Stones were awesome on stage, especially in the early '70s. Spectacle and amazing music, but are there any groups from any era where every single member went on after a split to each have #1 albums and #1 singles? I mean, Mick tried solo albums and only his first sorta charted. The other stones solo stuff was pretty much forgotten.

I guess that fact doesn't really pertain to the question, but when you think about it, it's fairly remarkable.

 

[milt]

So, neither one was particularly influential beyond music, but I actually think the Stones had more influence on the direction of music in the late 60s/early 70s. The Beatles were largely sui generis in my opinion. Both of them petered out before I was born, FWIW (although of course the Stones are still doing their thing).

See bolded.

1. Wrong
2. Wronger

Maybe you really did have to be alive at the time to fully appreciate The Beatles impact on culture.

 

[admsh]

One thing about Beatles/Stones, and here 50 years later I am far less likely to listen to Beatles music than I ever have been (especially in 2.0), and yes the Stones were awesome on stage, especially in the early '70s. Spectacle and amazing music, but are there any groups from any era where every single member went on after a split to each have #1 albums and #1 singles? I mean, Mick tried solo albums and only his first sorta charted. The other stones solo stuff was pretty much forgotten.

I guess that fact doesn't really pertain to the question, but when you think about it, it's fairly remarkable.

I find listening to the Beatles for me comes and goes in cycles. There are long periods of time when I can listen to nothing but the Beatles over and over again, rediscovering everything, and then long periods of time when I don't listen to them at all. Whenever something bad happen (like fascists taking over the free world) I feel like listening to Lennon's solo work in high volume. Interestingly enough, I come back to McCartney's solo music the most even though he annoys the shit out of me. All of his most recent stuff, well, everything since Off the Ground really, I absolutely adore.

I listen to A LOT of music, but in the end of the day the Beatles (together and apart) are the soundtrack to my life.

 

[mandrix]

Well the Beatles were just on the radio all the time, you know? I thought I'd never live long enough to not hear "Eleanor Rigby" & "Yesterday" 15 times a day.
But all kidding aside, Paul and John really had the song writing gig down. Not to say I didn't groove to "Last Time" by the Stones and learn to play rhythm guitar while my friend explored his lead guitar yearnings.
Wow suddenly had a flashback of Bowie's "Ch ch cha changes" "turn and face the strange" circa what? 69-70?

BTW leevitalone has got a couple months on me, otherwise we're just a couple'a old geezers I reckon.

 

[key_wiz]

I’m 57. I love both bands.

Beatles by a mile.

 

[4-earredwonder]

THE

Of COURSE!

 

[4-earredwonder]

Although, The Rolling

Weren't Too Shabby!

 

[4-earredwonder]

But IMO, NO ONE COULD EVER MATCH THE GRAVITAS OF:

Percy Plays Beatles and Stones Ballads Sgt. Pepper with strings?

 

[ubertrout]

See bolded.

1. Wrong
2. Wronger

Maybe you really did have to be alive at the time to fully appreciate The Beatles impact on culture.

I think not being alive then gives some perspective. They mattered to the people who loved them and they both influenced the direction of popular music, and to a smaller degree popular culture generally, but any real impact the Beatles had on culture more broadly was (a) coincident with a number of broad movements and (b) largely linked to the dissipation of those movements. They're great songs, but that's all they've been for 40+ years. And I'm about 40 - there's now a whole generation younger than me who have even less connection to their cultural milieu. They still like the songs, but someone born the day "Austin Powers" was released is almost 22, and that's their frame of reference for the 60s.

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I think not being alive then gives some perspective. They mattered to the people who loved them and they both influenced the direction of popular music, and to a smaller degree popular culture generally, but any real impact the Beatles had on culture more broadly was (a) coincident with a number of broad movements and (b) largely linked to the dissipation of those movements. They're great songs, but that's all they've been for 40+ years. And I'm about 40 - there's now a whole generation younger than me who have even less connection to their cultural milieu. They still like the songs, but someone born the day "Austin Powers" was released is almost 22, and that's their frame of reference for the 60s.

That is a very astute response.