The Beatles Bible - Topic: Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Egroeg Evoli on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:45:34 +0000

mja6758 on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:42:56 +0000

The 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 ...

Funny Paper on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:49:52 +0000

I 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).

Egroeg Evoli on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:41:25 +0000

1. 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.)

Lorettamartin on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:26:40 +0000

I would put The Who in third, the Kinks in fourth and The Yardbirds in fifth

Ben Ramon on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Tue, 19 Feb 2013 00:25:40 +0000

I 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.

robert on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 23:17:31 +0000

There is no number 2. It just goes straight to number 3.

Into the Sky with Diamonds on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Mon, 18 Feb 2013 20:29:00 +0000

Jimi Hendrix.

He did for the guitar what the Beatles did for music.
Led Zeppelin would be strong contenders, but in a sense were Hendrix derivatives.

meanmistermustard on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 13:35:45 +0000

I thought Dylan would have to be up there, very influencial in a number of ways and still going.

pianomurray on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 07:02:58 +0000

bob dylan should be second, the beatles were fans of dylan and he is still making albums. For the rolling stone magazine, his song "like a rolling stone" is considered to be the best rock and roll song of all times

Gerell on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 06:28:23 +0000

For me the third band is either The Who, The Beach Boys or the Jimi Hendrix Experience.

vonbontee on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Mon, 04 Feb 2013 03:59:46 +0000

1. Beatles
2. Led Zeppelin - The Beatles of the 70s!
3. Parliament-Funkadelic - The black Beatles/Zeppelin

unknown on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:42:36 +0000

I'm not much of a Stones fan, so I wouldn't put them at second, but whatever. Third, I would say Pink Floyd or Queen. Dino and Sinatra are above those two for me, but they're really not as consistent.

sky090909 on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:39:26 +0000

meanmistermustard 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 ...

meanmistermustard on Number one: The Beatles. Number two: The Stones. So who's third?

Sun, 03 Feb 2013 16:25:37 +0000

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.

Queen would be ...