base talk The Beatles are doing great numbers even on streaming, Rolling Stones didn't. Why?

[shoganai]

Gaga’s curse

[Feanor]

Well The Beatles are the biggest thing that has ever happened in music.

[fa77ot]

yes gaga, no streams

[Raspberries]

The Beatles are the biggest music act ever. Their music is celebrated through movies, theater, commercials etc. while having multiple very iconic songs. The music has carried over from decade to decade while Rolling Stones haven't for the most part

[Alaska.]

Now this is silly. The Beatles are the biggest musical act of all time and they haven't released new material in decades.

 

The Rolling Stones would obviously be performing a lot better with their new music if it was their only output released this century and if they were on some sort of long hiatus

[glacier76]

Isn’t Gaga part of Paul’s documentary or something? 

[nadiamendell]

Gagz streaming poison or something. 

[flashfox]

Talent loses sometimes 

[Infernal Paradise]

The Stones are definitely sulking over their Spotify streams as their 26th studio album debuted Top 3 on BB200 and #1 in the UK in the seventh decade of their monumental career. You really got 'em gal. 

 

 

[jdanton2]

1 hour ago, glitch said:

The Rolling Stones still regularly release music despite all basically being one foot in the grave. No one is gagged for their new releases. This is the first new Beatles song in years

this.

[Shimenawa]

Beatles are like Taylor, legendary 

[Shimenawa]

44 minutes ago, glacier76 said:

Isn’t Gaga part of Paul’s documentary or something? 

She recorded a song with him for a soundtrack years ago but still unreleased 

[Bears01]

Yes Gaga, yes bad streams 

[Buffy]

Isn’t The Rolling Stones a magazine? Never heard their music

[alejandreaux]

5 hours ago, Antikythera said:

Beatles is a glorified boyband especially on their most popular works, not that different from One Direction or BTS, the great thing is that they were first and kinda invented this kind of pop music. Their later work is much more daring.

 

Rollinh Stones is a real rock band, with real rock lyrics, rock attitude, sensuality. I much prefer their sound and the whole package. But it is not for the GP, ot wont reach soccer mom like Beatles "all you need is love" for example. Many people think songs like "Sympathy for the devil" is satanic lol in part is why they give me life, because u feel their song is a hard on, not a softy like many of the Beatles stuff.

 

Now Beatles have some nice work like "Come together" and other later music that I do enjoy. But I cringe with that #1 album, is so poppy, boybandy, eternal virgin men.

i think reducing them to nothing more than a “pop boy band” based solely on their earlier work severely downplays the influence they had as genuine rock artists from 1965 until their disbandment. during that period in many different ways, they significantly progressed the format of how a lot of bands approached making rock music (and recorded music in general) by pioneering recording techniques and pushing creative boundaries that had a substantial and immediate impact on the rock music landscape as a whole.
 

once they officially stopped touring as a “boy band” and started to experiment in the studio and expand their artistic output, the music they made during that period ended up having some form of inarguable impact on various different rock sub-genres, such as psychedelic rock (Tomorrow Never Knows, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds), folk rock (Yesterday, Rubber Soul album), progressive/experimental rock (Revolver album, self-titled album), and yes, even hard rock and heavy metal (Helter Skelter, I Want You). the godfather of heavy metal Ozzy Osbourne for example says that he would’ve never picked up a guitar in the first place if not for what The Beatles were doing during that time period. i definitely agree that The Rolling Stones were a lot grittier/more traditionally “rock” and i understand why you made the comparison in your comment, but i think saying that they were nothing more than a One Direction-style pop group completely disregards the highly-documented profound impact they had on the evolution of the rock music genre and it just seems kinda misguided tbh. 
 

OT: The Beatles are obviously massive and i’m not surprised, but it’s not really a fair comparison. The Rolling Stones have been releasing music and touring for every decade since they started. The Beatles put out a “new” song once every like 20 years or something?  ofc that’s gonna be seen as more of an event.

[Bosque]

The Beatles are an extremely foundational act that have not only inspired generations of artists coming after them, but wrote a huge number of catchy and timeless songs that continue to resonate with Gen Z. 

 

The Rolling Stones are a band with huge hits of their time that put on a great performance. 

 

The Beatles are Madonna. The Rolling Stones are Cyndi Lauper. They're not the same thing 

[Bosque]

5 hours ago, Antikythera said:

Beatles is a glorified boyband especially on their most popular works, not that different from One Direction or BTS, the great thing is that they were first and kinda invented this kind of pop music. Their later work is much more daring.

 

Rollinh Stones is a real rock band, with real rock lyrics, rock attitude, sensuality. I much prefer their sound and the whole package. But it is not for the GP, ot wont reach soccer mom like Beatles "all you need is love" for example. Many people think songs like "Sympathy for the devil" is satanic lol in part is why they give me life, because u feel their song is a hard on, not a softy like many of the Beatles stuff.

 

Now Beatles have some nice work like "Come together" and other later music that I do enjoy. But I cringe with that #1 album, is so poppy, boybandy, eternal virgin men.

"Beatles are exactly like One Direction or BTS, except that they invented a style of pop music" girl  

 

The Beatles literally have several albums that are considered the foundation of several different rock and pop subgenres and are amongst the most acclaimed albums of all tie 

Edited November 4, 2023 by Dephira

[Antikythera]

42 minutes ago, alejandreaux said:

i think reducing them to nothing more than a “pop boy band” based solely on their earlier work severely downplays the influence they had as genuine rock artists from 1965 until their disbandment. during that period in many different ways, they significantly progressed the format of how a lot of bands approached making rock music (and recorded music in general) by pioneering recording techniques and pushing creative boundaries that had a substantial and immediate impact on the rock music landscape as a whole.
 

once they officially stopped touring as a “boy band” and started to experiment in the studio and expand their artistic output, the music they made during that period ended up having some form of inarguable impact on various different rock sub-genres, such as psychedelic rock (Tomorrow Never Knows, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds), folk rock (Yesterday, Rubber Soul album), progressive/experimental rock (Revolver album, self-titled album), and yes, even hard rock and heavy metal (Helter Skelter, I Want You). the godfather of heavy metal Ozzy Osbourne for example says that he would’ve never picked up a guitar in the first place if not for what The Beatles were doing during that time period. i definitely agree that The Rolling Stones were a lot grittier/more traditionally “rock” and i understand why you made the comparison in your comment, but i think saying that they were nothing more than a One Direction-style pop group completely disregards the highly-documented profound impact they had on the evolution of the rock music genre and it just seems kinda misguided tbh. 
 

OT: The Beatles are obviously massive and i’m not surprised, but it’s not really a fair comparison. The Rolling Stones have been releasing music and touring for every decade since they started. The Beatles put out a “new” song once every like 20 years or something?  ofc that’s gonna be seen as more of an event.

u said what i said, they went more real musicians later on their career, but those songs from the beginning are really dumb poppy songs that yes have influenced people just because it was the first of its kind, i think it is trash, pure trash, it was pretty much the whole 50s romantic pop transformed it more pop, never liked it, but the other stuff you cited i really do like, but no as much as the rolling stones.

 

It is always a trap talking about legendary artists because of the god complex people attached to them, the media also.

 

For me Abba is a greater band than the Beatles in therms of what is brought to music when u talk about new style of production, evolution of pop music, they way they worked the vocals to create a whole mood, the versatility, the performance aspect, it is not only about doing it first but doing it risk, with life inside the music.

 

I could live in a world without Beatles but not in a world without Abba.

[Antikythera]

41 minutes ago, Dephira said:

"Beatles are exactly like One Direction or BTS, except that they invented a style of pop music" girl  

 

The Beatles literally have several albums that are considered the foundation of several different rock and pop subgenres and are amongst the most acclaimed albums of all tie 

any old artist can be "the creator of a style", u didnt read all, I was talking about their earlier work, trashy songs life "all u need is love", "love love me do u know i love u", "hey jude" lol all dumb trashy 50s influenced pop music I despise. Their later work is more inventive and I like it.

 

I can also tell Beethoven created the whole music world because of his influence, including the beatles;

[Reverse Warholian]

47 minutes ago, Dephira said:

The Beatles are Madonna. The Rolling Stones are Cyndi Lauper. They're not the same thing 

No 

[Bosque]

13 minutes ago, Reverse Warholian said:

No 

Great point 

[Raptus]

The Beatles are basic and can only dream of having dark-pop masterpiece like that below in their rotting, dusty discography

 

 

 

[Kimi]

4 hours ago, Dephira said:

The Beatles are Madonna. The Rolling Stones are Cyndi Lauper. They're not the same thing 

girl pls they are smaller than beatles but still top 10 biggest acts of all time bffr

[Mystic Boy]

11 hours ago, Antikythera said:

Beatles is a glorified boyband especially on their most popular works, not that different from One Direction or BTS, the great thing is that they were first and kinda invented this kind of pop music. Their later work is much more daring.

 

Rollinh Stones is a real rock band, with real rock lyrics, rock attitude, sensuality. I much prefer their sound and the whole package. But it is not for the GP, ot wont reach soccer mom like Beatles "all you need is love" for example. Many people think songs like "Sympathy for the devil" is satanic lol in part is why they give me life, because u feel their song is a hard on, not a softy like many of the Beatles stuff.

 

Now Beatles have some nice work like "Come together" and other later music that I do enjoy. But I cringe with that #1 album, is so poppy, boybandy, eternal virgin men.

 

4 hours ago, Antikythera said:

u said what i said, they went more real musicians later on their career, but those songs from the beginning are really dumb poppy songs that yes have influenced people just because it was the first of its kind, i think it is trash, pure trash, it was pretty much the whole 50s romantic pop transformed it more pop, never liked it, but the other stuff you cited i really do like, but no as much as the rolling stones.

 

It is always a trap talking about legendary artists because of the god complex people attached to them, the media also.

 

For me Abba is a greater band than the Beatles in therms of what is brought to music when u talk about new style of production, evolution of pop music, they way they worked the vocals to create a whole mood, the versatility, the performance aspect, it is not only about doing it first but doing it risk, with life inside the music.

 

I could live in a world without Beatles but not in a world without Abba.

Dear lord

 

 

OT: It's THE BEATLES