Log In
Register
10.35am
16 January 2013
Offline
Most 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
Offline It 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.
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
3.46pm
14 January 2013
Offline Depends on the person
1. Beatles, of course
2. Stones for their longevity of touring
3. For me it would be a bunch of bands like The Who, Led Zep, Black Sabbath, Pink Floyd, etc cause like The Beatles and The Stones they are still being listen to today and some of them are still touring.
4.25pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline 
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 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?
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.39pm
14 January 2013
Offline 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 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
Offline 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.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
3.59am
1 December 2009
Offline
1. Beatles
2. Led Zeppelin – The Beatles of the 70s!
3. Parliament-Funkadelic – The black Beatles/Zeppelin
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
6.28am
27 December 2012
Offline For me the third band is either The Who, The Beach Boys or the Jimi Hendrix Experience.
7.02am
4 February 2013
Offline 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
1.35pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I thought Dylan would have to be up there, very influencial in a number of ways and still going.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
8.29pm
10 August 2011
Offline
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.
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
11.17pm
19 April 2010
Offline There is no number 2. It just goes straight to number 3.
"She looks more like him than I do."
12.25am
26 March 2012
Offline 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.
SHUT UP - Paulie's talkin'
10.26am
13 February 2013
Offline I would put The Who in third, the Kinks in fourth and The Yardbirds in fifth
10.41pm
6 December 2012
Offline
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.)
Also known as Egg-Rock, Egg-Roll, E-George, Eggy, Ravioli, Eggroll Eggrolli...
~witty quote~
11.49pm
1 November 2012
Offline 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).
Faded flowers, wait in a jar, till the evening is complete... complete... complete... complete...
3.42am
Reviewers
17 December 2012
Offline 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 impressed by, and says something along the lines of, “While I could have written Satisfaction, you could never have written Like a Rolling Stone.”
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
1 Guest(s)