They were non-threatening. Fifteen-year old girls chewing pink bubble gum had their first orgasms screaming at the Beatles. Paul McCartney had a gift for pleasant melodies and catchy rhymes. John Lennon added a little spice here and there. George Harrison was not then writing music -- he just went along for the ride, but the girls loved him -- and Ringo was the comic element, very non-threatening. Later, after the break-up, Harrison showed that he was a fine songwriter on his own.
Now that sixty years have gone by, I find myself appreciating the Rolling Stones much more than the Beatles. The Stones stayed true to their roots. They may have done a lot of drugs, but they didn't do bullshit. The Beatles were targeted at teenage girls. I find their music shallow and trite. It's pleasant enough, but it's not satisfying.
My respect for the Stones came from an old 60's interview I saw where Mick tells everyone they have no political message to give, just rock n roll. Something to that effect.
Took my kid to see the Stones and they were f*ng incredible. Blues Travelers opened for them and they sucked so bad they were boo'd off the stage. It was great.
Rolling Stones were rooted in blues. Beatles were rooted in pop and musicals. Good blues songs never seem dated whereas styles of pop change.
As was Led Zep.
(post is archived)