I want people to convince me why the The Rolling Stones and Dylan should be higher than the Beatles. In this musicians ears I am appreciative of what they did though techinically and innovation they lagged way behind the Beatles. Dylan, Richards, McGuinn and Wilson all loved the Beatles for their chord progressions and harmonies. What did Dylan and the Stones have musically speaking and not lyrically that would put them ahead of the Beatles. Acclaimed Music are from the first that has the Beatles as their greatest artist. Time Magazine to Rolling Stone Magazine are others.

i don't really care who's more "innovative" or "talented" or "influential." that's just not a very interesting question to me. if you say it's the beatles, that's fine w/ me.

i can tell you why i like the stones more. they transformed american music - blues and country - into something sensational, theatrical, loud, fun, energetic, etc., and never lost track of that fundamental darkness at the heart of it all. at their best they were dirty, sleazy, raunchy, and sloppy, all while writing catchy hooks. in short, sex & drugs - that, to me, is rock and roll.

the new scorsese documentary sucks, btw, although it's kind of awesome to watch mick grind up on xtina.

in general, though, i think we would all do well to review this list of common "fallacies of logic." logic isn't indisputable, but we often tend to use some of these arguments as crutches, i think, just because they're easy and common (which at least means they're cliche if not outright wrong). of course i'm not exempting myself from these charges.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Although his influence in 'going electric' should not be neglected, I don't see how you can detract lyrics from music. They're part of what music is, what makes music great. Before Dylan popularized (not created obviously, just like The Beatles did not create pretty melodies) the use of lyrics in popular music there was no such things. There were pretty melodies, but really.. Dylan influenced everyone from VU, Stones, Neil Young, Springsteen and even The Beatles lyrically and and later Nirvana, Smiths, etc. Basically anyone who ever made a non-instrumental song.

You simply cannot separate lyrics from music, it's an integral and essential part, and that's why I think Dylan may have a bigger and more lasting influence than even The Beatles.

That said, all these artists in the 60s (Beatles, Stones, Byrds, Dylan, Velvet Underground, Neil Young, etc. etc.) influenced each other. Without the Beatles all the previously mentioned artists wouldn't be as good probably, but the same goes for the Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan, and The Velvet Underground.

I do, and we all should, love them all and if either of them was missing from the mix all the work from all the other artists would have suffered.

I don't think lyrics are part of the musical content. Take away the music and all you have are written words. Vocals, chord sequences and melodies are musical. I don't hear any band prior to the Beatles sounding like the Beatles or fused the style they had. Maybe there some examples here and there but I don't know of any. Not does this matter because their style were a major influence on the biggest names in rock music

The Beatles added a strong melody base to a energetic rock and roll beat. Rock and Roll prior to the Beatles relied heavily on the beat not on melody. The Beatles relied on both heavily. The Beatles also used more chords,less blues influence, while still being a guitarcentric band to this type of sound. That is one of the reasons why Dylan, The Byrds, Richards and Wilson were interested in the Beatles it was their chord progressions and harmonies. You hardly hear anyone in Rock Music these days playing blues scales.

I find Dylan's albums a bit over rated, on individual songs he was very good, I like the Stones though. Less pop than the Beatles, more rock.

I agree Dylan influence going electric was important and influential. You have to ask yourself who was big in influencing him to go electric.

Dunno, The Yardbirds?

Its the combination of the music and the lyrics that makes great rock music. I could say the beatles were great musicians and good lyricists, and Bob dylan was a great lyricist and a good musician. It just makes them equal.

But if your gunna go as far as saying that there werent any other musically talented bands as the beatles, I"LL HAVE TO DISAGREE

The Mothers of Invention : Freak Out - Came out the same year as Revolver

The Beach Boys : Pet sounds - Same

Love : Forever Changes - Came out the same year as Sgt Peppers

PInk Floyd : Pipers at the gates of dawn - same

The Zombies - Odessey and Oracle - Came out with the "White Album"

The Byrds - Sweetheart at the rodeo - Same

Van Morrison - Astral weeks - Same, and perhaps better than anything the beatles have ever done.

Captain Beefheart and his magic band ; Trout Mask Replica - came out with abby Road

King Crimson - In the court of the crimson King - Same



The Beatles were right there in the thick of it. Maybe without all those great pop albums, the beatles might not have strived to be all that they were.

I would not say the Beatles were the only ones but let's say Rubber Soul had a big influence on Aftermath and Pet Sounds and the art of the Rock Album. They were the only ones who could trascend into pop music IMO. Everyone had a hand in it the Beatles were the biggest influence. Dylan and the Stones were not using Classical avant influences and Traditional Indian music. The Beatles were able to combine it with pop-rock. Go ahead fine some other artist doing it. You find one.

Honestly though, all that Indian crap they released was rubbish. Nobody else did it because it sucked. The Beatles are surely the only band that get praised even if they make shitty music.

DISCLAIMER: THIS POST IN NO WAY IMPLIES THE BEATLES SUCK NOR IS IT AN ATTACK ON THE INFLUENCE OR INNOVATION OF THE BEATLES. STEPHAN AND ALL HIS AFFILIATES CAN IN NO WAY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS POST

I think it is wrong to suggest that The Beatles are underrated. Acclaimed Music combines all the ratings from critcs and has The Beatles ranked number one. So it's a safe bet that, as a whole, the critics like The Beatle best.

Why are Beatles fans so insecure about the standing of their favorite band?

Yeah. Im not saying the Beatles werent the most influencial band of all time. Im simply saying they are the some of there parts. They were influenced throughout there career by emerging artists of the same genre. They just happened to remain the most consistant.

My top 10 artist list (Just so theres no confusion)
1)Bob Dylan
2)The Velvet Underground
3)Radiohead
4)The Beatles
5)The Rolling stones
6)Neil Young
7)Tom waits
8)The Talking Heads
9)Nick Drake
10)Led Zeppelin

Arcade Fire : They have 2 albums in my top 10. Im sure one day they'll make that list

i don't know, i think they just like to have a circle jerk once a week.

clearly the best thing to do is ignore them, since that's generally what they do with any information that could possibly suggest the beatles didn't single-handedly invent every genre.

it's a little fascist, isn't it?

I find Dylan's sound a lot deeper and more stirring than the Beatles. The Beatles were fantastic pop and rock songwriters, but Dylan brings his wandering whimsy to master so many different styles I couldn't possibly put the Beatles ahead of him.

The Stones, you have an argument for the Beatles over them. But I like Exile more than any Beatles album. It rocks out more and has that rootsy blues rock sound.

Although, it is true that all those 60's bands influenced each other. A lot of the best albums of all time were attempts at oneupmanship.

When the Beach Boys wrote Pet Sounds they were trying to match Revolver, the Stones did a lot of trying to keep up with the Beatles, and the Beatles were trying to be more 'deep' and more progressive than everybody else.

The Rolling Stones and the Velvet Underground are arguably more influential on rock music as we know it now than the Beatles

I think a lot of people I notice neglect to mention that acts like the Velvet Underground have virtually no influence on pop music or other genres in music. The Beatles influence is across the board ranging from folk music to pop music besides rock. The Beatles influenced Abba to the Chemical Brothers. The Beatles influece is more varied than the Rolling Stones and Dylan.

No it's not. Dylan influenced, directly or indirectly, anyone who ever used lyrics since 1965. That means we also have him to blame for the crap James Blunt releases.. but whatever.

I am sorry that is a bunch of b.s Stephan. There are plenty of lyricists that have influenced other songwriters or devoloped their own styles. That's like saying Chuck Berry or Elvis are still more influential in Rock Music because they became before the Beatles and Dylan. I hate to break the news to you Beatles and Dylan surpassed them as a influence in Rock Music. I actually like Dylan more than most of the Beatle supporters here. I see more of a Beatles influence in pop music and rock music than Dylan. Frankly I don't think it's close at all.

Someone commented lyrics is not part of the musical content well lyrics are not part of the musical content. I mean I could say because the Beatles the estabalished the leaderless self contained rock group or guitar feedback that no one could surpass them.

But Chuck Berry and Elvis ARE more influential, obviously. So are Robert Johnson, Louis Armstrong, Judy Garland and Scott Joplin. Honest. But Dylan is the most influential of everyone though, because without him we wouldn't even be speaking now. There wouldn't be an English language, or an alphabet. Without Dylan we'd still be hunting and living in caves.

Johnny's in the basement mixin up the medecine.

This subject is tiresome ...because of the Beatles any artist worth his salt wrote their own songs they ignored the rules ...after they hit big every music artist was now "expected" to be able to write their own songs .... That should be enough to quiet the Beatlesbashers on this board. Or at least to give them their due. Even some trash metal band are indebted to the Beatles even if musically and lyrically they are not influenced by them.

They broke down a huge barrier for "British" groups ....popular acts like Cliff Richard ...The Shadows ... Tommy Steele ...etc ...could not break into the coveted US market .... even the Beatles had abit of a struggle ....IMO a big yes ...proof is here we are 45 years later still discussing them ....they turned the music industry upside down and broke all the rules EMI Parlophone "reluctantly" signed them ...(Decca had rejected them previously) ....in North America subsiduary Capitol had the rights to the Beatles music but initially chose "not" to release any (except in Canada) ....tiny labels such as VeeJay ...Swan ...and Tollie released early Beatles singles (and 1st album) with little promotion they barely made the charts ... by late 1963 Capitol finally woke up and rush released "Meet the Beatles" ...it's success started a tidal wave of British groups ....the Beatles opened the doors .... also in the USA suddently alot of teenagers saw what was going on and alot of bands were forming in garages all over ....some of these teenage garage bands would develop into successful 1970's bands ...groups like Styx ....and yes it's true that the Byrds saw the movie "A Hard Day's Night" and were influenced to buy a 12 string electric ...grow their hair and blend Bob Dylan's lyrics to Beatle jangle and create what was then dubbed "folk rock" ....later the Beatles ended up being "fans" and friends of the Byrds .....similiar situation with Bob Dylan ....the Beatles were influenced by Dylan ... Dylan was influenced by the Beatles ..switching from acoustic to electric ....The Beatles music speaks for itself ..it stands the test of time ....their music is timeless.

With Dylan artists might have been expected to write serious lyrics though not everyone does. With the Beatles your were expected to write your own songs a big effect notably The Rolling Stones and the Kinks. Hence they had the bigger influence and that's just songwriting and were not including recording techniques and musical influence. I don't expect any of the Beatlesbashers to change their opionions. So I am not wasting time with this.

I think this is completely absurd, and always has been.

Bob Dylan was smack-dab in the early 60's folk "convey messages through your songs" movement. So yes, he started throwing around lyrics that were above the herd, but lyrics were not an incredible breakthrough at the time; you didn't particularly need a genius to make the transition from poetry to song lyrics. And even so, he was inspired by Woody Guthrie.

And then he went electric, at the suggestion of his producer, which he had already done from the first. (His very first single, "Mixed Up Confusion" of 1962.)

As for arguments like...

..after they hit big every music artist was now "expected" to be able to write their own songs .... That should be enough to quiet the Beatlesbashers on this board.

Look at pop music today and tell me how many artists write their own songs. (Again, not to mention that writing your own songs was not an unbelievable event.)

Not to mention that things like "melody" were really very much in plain sight, and an element of common sense.

What does influence matter anyway? Do you judge people according to how many people have imitated them? I think we can agree that good music is supposed to be timeless, so does context and historical importance really mean that much to you? Shouldn't we try to listen to the music itself? What does it matter who got where first anyhow?

Yeah I hate how people say it's so influential for their reason for something being so good. It doesn't work that way - just because something influenced alot of artists that came after it doesn't mean it's better than everything else that came after...

I agree with Reuben in what he is saying. There are legions of rock bands who still write their own songs. I think it's absurd what the other person was saying.

Dylan actually went away from his rock and roll roots because he found it boring. It was only the Beatles and British Invasion that revived his interests in rock and roll. How many times have your heard the famous Dylan qoute saying the Beatles were pointing the direction of music was heading to. It's part of the history rock music that the Beatles paved the way for the British Invasion and influenced the Byrds and Dylan to go electric.

People aren't expected to write their own songs today.
Many still do.
If they do, it's not because of The Beatles.
Lots of people wrote their own songs before The Beatles. Like Buddy Holly for example.
The Beatles didn't invent that stuff.

Most rock bands write their own songs what you're saying is total rubbish. I don't think anyone has said the Beatles invented songwriting in rock music. Not to take away anything from Chuck Berry and Buddy Holly they were more the exception than the rule. The Beatles established it as the norm in rock music after they made it. Yeh any rock band who writes their own songs owes a lot to the Beatles. Especially the bands who don't rely on a frontman.

Keith Richards once said it was the Beatles that forced them and the rest of his peers to write their own song. He thought they were just a cover band.

And Buddy Holly inspired The Beatles to write their own songs.

Who do you think is more influential?

Since maybe only a small percentage wrote their songs when Holly was around. I would not say Holly. During the Beatles time as a band it became a common practice for rock bands to write their own songs. Now I won't say the Beatles were the only ones there is Dylan, The Kinks, The Who and the Stones all contributed.

Let's turn this around why are the Beatles being tossed around here. Why can't anyone answer the original question. The Stones first truly great album in my mind was Let In Bleed or Beggers Banquet. Dylan was a great album artist but was he a great singles artist?

The Rolling Stones' early albums are pretty much as good as The Beatles' early; not as melodic, but with more variety and depth. "Out Of Our Heads" is awesome; the hardest part is surviving the production, but once you get past that, it's awesome.

What The Rolling Stones lacked in innovation, they made up for in depth (listen to "Time Is On My Side" or "Play With Fire" again).

Later on, The Beatles became much deeper at points (with songs like "Julia" and "All You Need Is Love"), but, hey, The Stones had stuff like "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (though the best parts are songs like "Gimme Shelter").

Too bad their later albums (1973 and on) range from pretty dull, to murderously crap.

Still, it's not hard to see why someone would prefer them over The Beatles, even though The Beatles have more charm in the end.

As for Dylan, if you like storytelling in songs, you might think he's better than The Beatles too. Why detract "musical innovation" points when Bob didn't even pursue that?

And he's got 15 great albums, half of which are really great, and some really good other song scattered around, with everything from ruminations on mortality ("Not Dark Yet") to heartache ("Abandoned Love") to bitter but deeply idealistic anthems ("Blowin' In The Wind", "Masters Of War") to pure fun ("Desolation Row") to spirituality ("Knockin' On Heaven's Door", "I Shall Be Released"). And his backing bands (for 1965-1967, the mid-70's, and the late 90's to the present) are really great. "Blonde On Blonde" has beautiful music. Songs like "One Of Us Must Know (Sooner Or Later") are incredible.

In the end, he wasn't nearly as good as he could have been because he was too idiosyncratic, didn't have consistent standards, and couldn't sing.

The Beatles musically were more versatile musicians and they were more progressive musically than Dylan and the Rolling Stones. Lyrics are so overrated when it comes to music. Jazz music and Classical Music are great music that does depend on lyrics. Then again the Beatles were writing serious subject matter "There's A Place" 1963 and political songs "The Word" and T"hink For Yourself"

The Stones were mimicking blues music for the most part. Until Satisfaction they were basically a cover band.

The Beatles were unconvtional and innovative for Rock Music some of many example

I Want to Hold Your Hand" (
Fresh dynamic sound (even "rubbery" guitar chords)
singable, "catchy" tune with harmonic surprises (unexpected chord changes)

(A Hard Day's Night)
unusual instrumental sonority
melody employs effectively contrasting phases
unusual chords and relationship between melody and harmony. Use of modal harmony

"The Word" and "Think For Yourself" - political songs...?

"The word is love".
"Think for yourself".

Very political.

someone please stab me in the face