Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   Paul was the cute Beatle, George was the quiet one, Ringo was the funny one, John was the homophobic anti-Semitic douche, Yoko coulda taken a couple bullets for John, and the Stones were better anyway   (salon.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Beatles, Mick Jagger, History of Rock and Roll, rocks, John Lennon, Paul McCartney  
•       •       •

3434 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 25 Sep 2013 at 9:44 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-09-25 10:25:01 AM  
4 votes:
Paul McCartney has more talent than the rest of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who put together.
2013-09-25 10:27:56 AM  
3 votes:
"Beatles vs. Stones": What fueled rock's greatest rivalry

$
2013-09-25 02:58:48 PM  
2 votes:

zimbomba63: Where as, with the Beatles "creativity", it simply sprang forth, new, original and fully formed, due to their unimaginable talents.


Don't you think the stones' best work was later, after they had stopped playing re-hashed chicago blues, and started playing country (thanks Gram!) R&B and other styles?  Long after the Beatles has disbanded....  it's almost apples and oranges.

my opinion, By Decade:

60s: Beatles re-define pop creativity, Stones essentially Chicago Blues cover band.
70s: Stones incredibly creative and great, no Beatles in existence, all Beatles solo material is inferior to stones
2013-09-25 01:08:41 PM  
2 votes:

Bongo Blue: a majority of the hooks are lennons.


As an obsessive rock nerd (and I am not bragging about that, it's like admitting you are alcoholic) most of my reading of their writing and recording sessions indicates otherwise.  Lennon was the visceral rocker and the Dylanesque poet.  Macca focused on melodies, harmony and his background in traditional music.  It all came together in a beautiful sweet and salty mix which is further proven by their solo work after the Beatles.

None of those points are absolute ("Julia", "Helter Skelter") but generally true.
2013-09-25 11:52:28 AM  
2 votes:
I'll put "Silly Love Songs" and "Band on the Run" up against anything Lennon put out in the 70s.

/And what's wrong with that?
//I'd like to know
///'Cause here I go again!
2013-09-26 12:41:45 AM  
1 vote:
95% of Beach Boys songs are as bad as the early Beatles fluff.

there were NO Beatles fluff songs, the Beach Boys were almost all fluff until Pet Sounds
2013-09-25 03:21:31 PM  
1 vote:

udhq: The kinks, beachboys or love make them all look like amateurs.


Not really, no. The Kinks have some good songs and a ton of meh ones, and 95% of Beach Boys songs are as bad as the early Beatles fluff.
2013-09-25 02:18:31 PM  
1 vote:

zimbomba63: stupiddream: zimbomba63: IntertubeUser: Paul McCartney has more talent than the rest of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who put together.

Yeah, I could, seeing as Paul has preformed Helter Skelter live many times.  Can you imagine the Stones singing Paperback Writer or Yesterday with the same skill as the Beatles did at Candlestick Park?

Ah, no, I can't see the Stones singing Paperback Writer or Yesterday.And why would they have wanted to?  One's a pop ditty, and the other is a turgid, lost-love moan.  And if some one had held a gun to their heads and forced them belt out those two "masterpieces", I hope their interpretation bring a little something more, rock-wise, to the performance, than the boys did.  But, that's just my opinion.


Like maybe Angie or Get Off of My Cloud?  Ones a 'turgid, lost-love moan' and the other is a 'pop ditty'.  Neither has anything on the two songs I mentioned.
2013-09-25 01:52:31 PM  
1 vote:
and the Stones were better anyway

[You's a trollin'.jpg]

The Stones totally ripped off Muddy Waters. Not that this is uncommon - plenty of bands borrow from others and improve on the product. The Stones were great at bluesy rock, and put some real flair into the genre; but they were not nearly as creative in their actual products. The Beatles were all-stars at creativity, it really shows in their body of work, and this is by far the most important aspect of why they are so influential on other musicians.
2013-09-25 01:39:45 PM  
1 vote:

udhq: The kinks, beachboys or love make them all look like amateurs.


The Beatles and Beach Boys were extremely competitive with each other and I don't think either one would have achieved the greatness they did without the other.

The Kinks are great, rocked hard for decades, and shared Macca's English Music Hall influences, and probably had the first/best distorted guitar, but you cant really put them in the same category as the Beatles or the Stones.

Love is way cool but c'mon that's just a troll.
2013-09-25 01:35:32 PM  
1 vote:
Oh, and if anyone cares, Macca was probably the best guitar soloist n the band also.

http://www.guitarworld.com/top-five-beatles-guitar-solos-paul-mccart ne y?page=0,0
2013-09-25 12:22:03 PM  
1 vote:
The Beatles are better by a long shot. "Tomorrow Never Knows' is better than every Rolling Stone song combined. Plus the Stones have been shiating on their legacy for almost 40 years now.
2013-09-25 12:13:17 PM  
1 vote:

zimbomba63: IntertubeUser: Paul McCartney has more talent than the rest of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who put together.

The bong, put it down!  NOW!

McCartney's post-Beatles career was one step above bubblegum music, except bubblegum music had more gravitas.

Stones to Beatles - Classic apples to oranges.  How are you going to compare a pop band (Beatles) to a rock band (Stones)?

Live performance, Stones > Beatles.  Can you imagine the Beatles singing "Gimme Shelter", their own fans would have laughed them off the stage.

Early Who, was the best Who.  Same for the Stones.  These things have a short shelf life.


Yeah, I could, seeing as Paul has preformed Helter Skelter live many times.  Can you imagine the Stones singing Paperback Writer or Yesterday with the same skill as the Beatles did at Candlestick Park?
2013-09-25 11:37:49 AM  
1 vote:

fickenchucker: SlagginOff: I love both bands but I have to give the edge to The Beatles because of their greater range. I can listen to their whole catalog and only skip a few song. The Stones are fun, but I don't really need to listen to them for more than an hour.

^^^THIS^^^^

Plus, who didn't know John was a talented hypocritical dickface?  It's pretty common knowledge he hid his first wife, shunned his kid Julian, and hooked up with a weird talentless hack who apparently knew how to get him off better than his wife.


I read Pam's (John's first wife) autobiography.  She claims he only hit her once and that was in high school long before they got married.  She broke up with him for it and it took John a great deal of time and energy to convince her to go back out with him.  She claims he never hit her again.

Now as to him hitting Yoko I can't profess knowledge nor would I blame him if he did.
2013-09-25 11:17:02 AM  
1 vote:
The Rutles beat them all
2013-09-25 11:00:45 AM  
1 vote:
"Meanwhile, Mick Jagger passively encouraged the Beatles to sign with Allen Klein, knowing all too well that he was a thief."

This is the opposite of everything else I've read. From what I've heard, Klein was actively pursuing the Beatles, and while Paul wanted to hire his future father-in-law Lee Eastman, John Lennon convinced Ringo & George that Allan Klein was the guy for the job. When Mick heard about this, he called Lennon and told him that hiring Klein would be "the biggest mistake of his life".
2013-09-25 10:50:03 AM  
1 vote:
I prefer classic Stones to classic Beatles. But the Beatles went out on top. The Stones have been coasting on fumes for literally decades.
2013-09-25 10:39:44 AM  
1 vote:
I love both bands but I have to give the edge to The Beatles because of their greater range. I can listen to their whole catalog and only skip a few song. The Stones are fun, but I don't really need to listen to them for more than an hour.
2013-09-25 10:36:58 AM  
1 vote:
The Stones are better in some ways, but out of their 5,000 songs I probably only want to listen to about 10 of them.
2013-09-25 10:31:28 AM  
1 vote:
This thread is going to be smugtrolldouchetastic.
*gets popcorn*
2013-09-25 10:27:12 AM  
1 vote:

Onkel Buck: The Who is better than both of them! First punk band for my money


IntertubeUser: Paul McCartney has more talent than the rest of the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Who put together.


I like you guys.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report