McCartney was one of the best bass players of his time, and would (if he were still young) be among the best today.
stones have 1 song that doesn't make me want to vomit (gimme shelter) beatles have zero stones by default i guess floyd/zep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
100 years from now, people will still remember and play The Beatles' music. They won't remember the Stones.
Beatles and there is no close second. There's a reason Beatles songs are covered by bands in every genre of music from Andy Williams to Robin Trower to Sarah Vaughn to Cheap Trick. They were written by musicians with an innate understanding of music theory who also happened to be incredibly talented and productive. So their songs "have a lot of meat on them" as one of my guitar teachers used to say. They are just screaming for someone to elaborate on them, or turn them on their ear.
The Beatles are so good that the oldies stations won't play their songs. But they play Rolling Stones songs. In the 60s every 10th song on the radio was a Beatles one. The Stones are just one of about 30 supergroups or superindividual singers from the 60s. Just compare quantity of hits. One more comment: The decade of the 60s was from about 1955-75. Music after that should not be called rock and roll. It is very different.
Musically, the decades have always seemed to fall on the 5's. 1935-1945, 1945-1955, 1955-1965, 1965-1975, 1975-1985, after that it gets pretty spotty with no real definition of quality or reigning genre for any amount of time.
Each of those decades got separate names until rock and roll. That stuck. Maris, you know more about music than I do. Tell me the names of each genre for those decades you listed. I'd learn something; maybe others would too. And why do they still call many songs today rock and roll when they sound nothing like 1955-75? Maybe they supposedly share some inner structure in common with then, but I sure can't hear it.
This is amazing and unprecedented. Click on each album to see the cover bands. http://beatlescoverversions.com/tbl.html Still more amazing, a quick glance tells me these are very incomplete lists.
The Beatles played mostly Rock and Roll in their early years. Help! was almost entirely acoustic, pretty much folk music. Rock and Roll is basically blues music, typically played upbeat. Rock music is what Rock and Roll evolved as, and Rock Bands typically feature guitar, bass, and drums, sometimes keyboards. Technically, that would be the musical arrangement. Rock and Roll almost always features lead and rhythm guitar, bass, and drums... Rock Music encompasses a pretty wide range of music style. I would consider ELP/Yes/Floyd type music to be progressive rock or fusion - there's a lot of classical influence or jazz influence in their style. Led Zepplin played a shitload of blues and a lot of their music had an Indian/Hindu influence (fusion). The 50s through 80s had a lot of variety. There was Punk Rock and Disco and Fusion and Rock and Roll and the only two kinds of music: Country & Western. Very brief, but maybe enough to get the idea across.
Before I was around but there was the Big Band Era, the Swing Era...some genres are timeless and unending including classical, jazz, the blues, and rock and roll, although most current rock and roll is being written by bands from my youth. Today's youth has no particular music style calling to them and there has been very little in the way of new ideas from popular musicians lately, and that may be the answer to the question "why isn't today's youth demanding a better world?" Can't march to a different drummer when they all pound the same monotonous beat.
Thanks, Denny and Maris. I think producers have too much training nowadays and that's why they can't put out a good song with both tune and beat. As an untrained listener, I bet I could come up with a whole new classification system for songs, if I spent time classifying about 5000 songs. That generation coming out of WW2 seemed to make great music, using our generation as their young public face. They had a controlled, orderly system to produce hits. But then writers rebelled and went independent.
I saw Charlie Daniels Band at UofI in the last 70s. Everyone was wearing cowboy hats, cowboy boots, big belts, etc. I took my wife to Merilville Indiana to see him 2 or 3 years later. Everyone was wearing collared shirts with undershirts. The band played their usual stuff and had an intermission. After the intermission, they opened the curtains behind the band and there was a gospel choir and the rest of the evening was gospel music. Really good gospel music. Another kind of fusion ;-)
"The Beatles are better because more people covered them and they had a good bass player" Basically I don't want to know any of you except the 2 guys who voted for The Stones and the other guy who likes ice cream and burritos.
I prefer ice cream (Ben & Jerry's, or homemade) to burritos. My iPod has about half a dozen Stones songs (to date, Angie, Ruby Tuesday, She's a Rainbow, Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Jumpin' Jack Flash) and I will probably add a few more . I have the entire Beatles remastered CD set uploaded. It is hard, Maris, to put some things into a specific genre. I have a Classical play list, and another that started as "Rock" but finally got renamed "Rocks and Minerals" - I mean, by no stretch of the imagination are Judy Collins and Pete Seeger "rock". What the hell, it's good music, who cares what the category is? BTW, here by the Bay the oldies/classic rock stations play lots of Beatles. And every Saturday morning is the weekly 2 hour Beatles special. Does any station have a weekly Rolling Stones special? That is one of their most popular shows?
