Do you think that the Beatles are better than Prince?

minneapolisgenius said:

No, I don't suppose you would. But keep in mind that the title is not "Best..." but "Greatest..." Greatness implies size, and the Stones are bigger than Zeppelin (though not much).

2freaky4church1 said:

It's not fair to compare one person vs four in a collaborative effort.

But... I think Prince as an individual artist is immensley talented - I am obviously a BIG fan. But I also think he can be single-minded too - he's very fixed in his ways (know from a friend who worked with him in studio). But the Beatles... they paved the way and were catalysts in the evolution of rock music. They were were more open to change and development. IMO.

I would encourage those who havent seeked the anthologies to do so, if your really into The Beatles..

having said that, Anthology 2 & 3 are crucial in my catelog of The Beatles.. back in the mid 90's when it was released.. It is what captured my attention of how brilliant they are.. It's nice to see how they developed and such.. there are like 3 strawberry fields in a row on anthology 2, and each one shows different light on the song..


Its a must for Beatle fans.. and the soundquality is great Anthology 2 & 3.. Anthology 1 has some great stuff but the quality can get sketchy throughout..but as a whole this entire set is an absolute must.

RipHer2Shreds said:

This coming from someone whose avvie represents an artist that cut his 1st record over 30 years ago and who arguably hasn't had a decent release in over a decade?





tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

2freaky4church1 said:

Yes.
Oh you weren't talking to me, were you?

andyman91 said:

When I listen to the Stones I feel like I should be listening to Chess Blues or some r&b on Stax/Atlantic.
When the Beatles are on, I'm happy with the program as it is.

ABeautifulOne said:

What's with the animosity ?

andyman91 said:

"World's Greatest..." just makes me think of the circus though. You know, like "The Greatest Show on Earth!!" and scary clowns.

I don't use that term too often.

But yeah, of course the Stones are bigger (and more popular) than Zeppelin. Mostly because they're still kicking around touring and putting out music.

Yes. Brilliant in lyrically and melodic simplisity.
My favourite album so far would be Abbey Road.
[Edited 10/15/05 11:18am]

Paul McCartney and I have the same birthday.

When I was little, I was mad that I had the same birthday as some dude I didn't know.

I had no idea how flattering that really was.

I love the Beatles!!!!

gemini13 said:

You look great for 63

blackguitaristz said:

Exactly, people use to forget that if the beatles weren't there, Music would never be the same...

The thing about the Beatles is they got lucky, extremely lucky. On their own, John and Paul could have each fronted seperate groups and been hugely successful. Together they were head and shoulders above everyone else. I always wondered what more they could have done if John hadn't zoned out in the '67-'70 era. He really laid back and let Paul take over the group. Sure he wrote many great songs during this era, but if you look at the singles, most of them were Paul's. It would have been great if they both could have fired on all cylinders at the same time.

see thats the thing.. thats what was so magical about them.. Its almost one of those "too good to be true things".. especially looking back.. very crucial for music.


Thank goodness for the beatles...

i wonder what would have happened if john lennon had not met paul mccartney?...they had such an impact in the 60s that the world might have been a different place if the beatles hadnt happened.....certainly modern music would have been totally different.

interesting. About how modern music might be... no christopher Tracy's Parade, no Around the world in a Day....

blackbob said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Yep.

Sdldawn said:

COULD NOT AGREE MORE!

minneapolisgenius said:

That makes sense, then. Those scary clowns did put on a Circus!
[Edited 10/18/05 10:36am]

BEATLES ARE DA BEST EVER !!!! ( no competition )

andyman91 said:[quote]

CinisterCee said:

In that case not his best. "And I love her" is probably the worst beatles song, maybe worst than "Michelle" ( I know is Paul´s...)



I don´t think so....

But anyhow I love Lennon songs from the early epoch: You Got to Hide... etc.

GalaxyMasturbation said:

Of course, the beatles are better, However, I can think on, at least, three issues in which the Stones are better than the beatles:
1. Unlike Lennon-McCartney , Jagger-Richards are a real integrated pair of composers.
2. The Stones have that "intimate" relation with blues, r&b and iven classic rock and roll, that the beatles lack
3. Mick is probably a better singer and dancer than all the 4 fabs.

dammme said:

I'd say Lennon McCartney started out more integrated, but you're right, as it didn't really last long.

I'd definitely disagree about the singing (the dancing I can't dispute!). Mick was great, but Lennon was as good as any rock singer. And as a Beatle, Paul was a great singer. And Mick live since at least the 80's hasn't been exactly stellar, other than his energy & presence.

andyman91 said:

Yes, I think Lennon is not just good but excellent rock singer. And Paul is also remarkable good. However, there is something special in the relation between the Stones music and albums (mainly of course the Brian Jones & Mick Taylor epochs) and Mick voice that I find unique.

dammme said:

Oh, yeah. Mick's got a great voice, and was a great singer. I definitely see why some would like the Stones more, even. If you want some bluesy rock, you're not exactly going to find a whole Beatles album that suits you.