Topic RSS
10.35am
16 January 2013
OfflineMost people round here would agree that the Beatles really were the Toppermost of the Poppermost, not just in the 60s but in their entire lifetimes. I'd guess not too many would dispute that the Stones deserve to be rated number 2. But who should come 3rd, either for the 60s or for your entire lifetime?
Using such criteria as the quality of the music and the songs, I rate The Beach Boys very high for the 60s, but most of the records are played by session musicians. Bringing in musicianship, The Who score very high for me.
Bringing in subsequent decades, for me it's pretty much a tie between Queen and 10 cc, but Freddie Mercury's charisma just shaves it for Queen.
What do other people think?
11.16am
1 November 2012
OfflineIt depends on the genre, I guess. I'm not a "rock" fan per se. I don't really seek out rock music, but there was something special the Beatles did with ordinary rock music that makes it attractive to me. Thus, ordinarily I would tend to dislike songs like Helter Skelter or I Want You or Come Together or Back in the USSR -- but when the Beatles created those, I'm deeply impressed and love it. (I do like two or three Stones songs, but not as much as other people like them; and I simply have never sought out Cream, or Led Zeppelin, or Steppenwolf, or Pink Floyd, or Queen, or etc. for my musical pleasure or needs.)
Then there's the concept of the "band" -- a unit of musicians with an identity, a charisma, an effect on culture.
So it sounds like you're asking your question from a standpoint of "best rock band".
From that standpoint, it makes sense to say Beatles #1 and Stones #2.
Now, I would propose for another decade, the 70s, I would nominate Chicago.
And in terms perhaps of "another world", I would nominate Santana.
***
However, I think there's a unique quality of the Beatles that no one else had -- and perhaps that is why no other pop/rock band has ever come close to approximating what they did in terms of that "impact" -- musically and culturally -- you are referring to here.
3.46pm
14 January 2013
Offline4.25pm
1 May 2011
OfflineWould the Stones be second? Rightly held up for their material in the 60's and early Seventies but after that its bits here and there. Touring-wise they are huge and are meant to be great live (i saw them in Glasgow and was disappointed but that might just be down to a seemingly 78 minute guitar piece bore by Richards). Have recently gotten their 3cd Grrrrr (such a pathetic title for an album that i renamed it adding a few oversights) so maybe their later music will be better than i think – have always liked Love is Strong.
Queen would be up there for their longetitivy and touring that was only cut short because of Mercury's failing health, their catalogue is every bit as good as the Stones.
Pink Floyd would have to be in the running, The Who are still going in some guise or other when the mood takes them. Oasis.
Regardless of whether you like them or not The Beatles really have to be top but they only toured for 4 years with Ringo (august '62 – august '66) and even by the end of '64 they were becoming sloppy when performing live. So would length of touring be a plus for them?
4.39pm
14 January 2013
Offlinemeanmistermustard said
Would the Stones be second? Rightly held up for their material in the 60's and early Seventies but after that its bits here and there. Touring-wise they are huge and are meant to be great live (i saw them in Glasgow and was disappointed but that might just be down to a seemingly 78 minute guitar piece bore by Richards). Have recently gotten their 3cd Grrrrr (such a pathetic title for an album that i renamed it adding a few oversights) so maybe their later music will be better than i think – have always liked Love is Strong.
Mick in this video states that "Nobody wants hear anything from your new album" in this Top 10 Things, that I Mick Jagger have learned in 50 years of Rock'n'Roll. I like some of their 80s stuff, but I don't think there is anything really after that.
4.42pm

5 November 2011
Offline3.59am
1 December 2009
Offline6.28am
27 December 2012
OfflineFor me the third band is either The Who, The Beach Boys or the Jimi Hendrix Experience.
"When I was a robber *Piano Chord* in Boston Place"
"Let's hope this turns out pretty darn good huh"
"Pete may be the best, but Ringo is the star"
Paul:"Don't be nervous John"
John:"I 'm not"
1.35pm
1 May 2011
Offline8.29pm
10 August 2011
Offline12.25am
26 March 2012
OfflineI wouldn't put the Stones at second, even if we're just focusing on the most acclaimed and influential periods of the nominees. Dylan would come in pretty close to the Beatles for me; his finest albums in the Sixties are full of the most beautiful and powerful songwriting ever, and there's no denying his vast influence in music and culture. I like Bowie a lot too, but I don't know if he really deserves to be put up there with Bob and the Beatles.
10.26am
13 February 2013
Offline10.41pm
6 December 2012
Offline1. Beatles
2. Solo Beatles (not gonna rank them right now)
3. Michael Jackson (I am not offended if you think that is an incredibly idiotic choice. I like his music. Sue me.)
Do you want to know a secret? Read my username backwards. ~ ~ ~ - - - . . . - - - ~ ~ ~ Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy...
☮ & <3
11.49pm
1 November 2012
OfflineI hate to be a buzzkill, but to me the choice doesn't even involve the Beatles, but rather: Chicago, or Santana?
The reason it doesn't involve the Beatles is because to me they are so beyond any other band, there is no comparison. It's kind of the mirror image reverse of what T.S. Eliot said about literature:
Dante had Heaven, Shakespeare had Earth: There is no third.
So, back on Earth, my choices are the above (and any other band would vie, according to your preferences).
3.42am
17 December 2012
OfflineThe Stones, as this thread seems to be proving, do not come in second.
For me, a very close second, has to be Dylan. There was not only their pivotal influence on each other, something which changed the direction of both careers, but their influence on everybody else. You take either out of the equation and the '60s would have been a very different place.
My favourite Dylan/Stones story involves a meeting between Bob and Mick Jagger at The Ad Lib in the mid-'60s. Jagger is trying to convince Bob just how alike they are. Bob looks at Jagger, who he's not impressed by, and says something along the lines of, "While I could have written Satisfaction, you could never have written Like a Rolling Stone."
Most Users Ever Online: 597
Currently Online: DrBeatle, HeyTrud
2 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
mr. Sun king coming together: 6972
meanmistermustard: 3435
MeanMrsMustard: 2794
Egroeg Evoli: 1540
vonbontee: 1427
Von Bontee: 1374
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 87
Members: 1683
Moderators: 5
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 3
Forums: 33
Topics: 2398
Posts: 73417
Newest Members: fartoons, RIGBY, WilliamCampbell, JQ, Juliana Melo
Moderators: Joe (2702), skye (2295), Ellie (1), Zig (2752), mithveaen (4675)
Administrators: Joe (2702)
Log In
Register
Home





