Why do people consider the Beatles and the Rolling Stones to be good Rock n’ Roll?

Posted by admin on April 11th, 2010 and filed under beatles rock and roll | 33 Comments »

That stuff is ridiculously tame compared to the actual scene back then (think local bands.)

I like them too. It’s just an opinion. Some people like them, some people don’t. Besides, how tame they are doesn’t determine how good they are. It’s all in the mind.

33 Responses

  1. Carson Says:

    I like them too. It’s just an opinion. Some people like them, some people don’t. Besides, how tame they are doesn’t determine how good they are. It’s all in the mind.
    References :

  2. The Fool on The Hill Says:

    what are you? an idiot?
    do you know what those bands did for rock and roll?
    References :

  3. satchjr2 Says:

    Tame or not they wrote great songs!! Especially the Beatles!!! You don’t have to be crazy and loud to be considered good rock n’ roll.
    References :

  4. sarsar Says:

    Good rock n’ roll isn’t all about being "wild" and like those bands or not, The Beatles and The Stones are two of the most influential bands of all time.

    What bands, might I ask, are better then?
    References :

  5. Sigh Co Says:

    Because they’ve been brainwashed by pop culture to believe that.

    The Beatles bore the piss out of me, and the Rolling Stones are just grampas.
    References :

  6. Lita Says:

    It seems to me that people just like to jump on the bandwagon. And yeah um I dunno, I’m not into any old rock bands.
    References :

  7. Melinda Says:

    What??

    they influenced music like crazzy!!! what are you talking about!!!
    References :

  8. David B Says:

    Because they have good songs
    References :

  9. milton b Says:

    I don’t think you are actually old enough to remember either of these bands or what the music scene was like in the early 60’s or you wouldn’t be saying such things.
    References :

  10. blslvsbb23 Says:

    u no man, you wouldnt have your little screamo shit and all other types of rock and roll if it wasnt for them.
    References :

  11. Jenn Says:

    I think too that it’s Rock and Roll by the Pop standard. These were chart topping bands. Most of the most popular "true rock" bands have never been chart toppers. So I guess in a way it’s also how you define Rock and Roll.
    References :

  12. Crystal Says:

    Because they were the best in that generation.
    References :

  13. dark_princess Says:

    Because both bands are good Rock n’ Roll !!! that’s why
    References :

  14. Taylor Says:

    Different people have different opinions. Some people love The Beatles, I dont really care for them. I think it might just be because they were well known, and people confuse the words ‘good’ and ‘well known’ quite a bit.
    References :

  15. NAY IS ANTI-JONAS! Says:

    Umm…

    rock n’ roll is a little "crazier" I guess… Beatles no. I hate to even say that they’d be a pop/rock, but not like 2008 pop of course. Rolling Stones are closer to good rock ‘n roll than the Beatles in my opinion.

    the first good rock ‘n roll band that comes to my head is Led Zeppelin.
    References :

  16. Daniel S Says:

    The major difference with The Beatles and the Rolling Stones is that they did what local bands of that time (and bands of today aren’t doing). They didn’t listen to trends of different time periods, they allowed their music to be their music….If you look at today’s music, a majority of the new artists have a similar sound, which also defines what genre they are in. Both the Beatles, and Rolling stones wrote and performed music that they wanted, not necessarily what they were told
    References :

  17. Ryan B Says:

    Early Beatles’ music was Pop, not Rock ‘n Roll. The Stones were great Rock pre-1969, then they went downhill.

    The term "Rock ‘n Roll" doesn’t mean it has to be hard.
    References :

  18. PACO Says:

    they are great musicians, and influenced countless people to pick up instruments and start bands. imagine music now if they were never around. it would be nowhere near the way it is now.
    References :

  19. zzvegasbaby Says:

    Two of the most influential and great pioneers into rock and roll. The songs, the music are compared to no one.
    References :

  20. LadyMady Says:

    The Rolling Stones endured while many did not make it, including the Beatles (a great band). The music has influenced new performers and they paved the way with their fantastic set designs. No one can match them before them, today and after, when they are gone. They change their sound and style, which keeps them fluid.
    If the Beatles did not make the White Album, they would have been just another rock n’ roll band, but the White Album is genious. So give the two groups your R-E-S-P-E-C-T!, THEY DESERVE IT.
    References :

  21. Jem Says:

    I looked at some of your former questions and I think you should stick with what you know which is boobs and blow jobs.
    References :

  22. forgotten_glory Says:

    I can appreciate what they did for music, and the evolution that it has taken since then. So, I more appreciate them than I do like their music. I think most people are just told by others that is what rock is supposed to sound like, and so it is passed on. I like a few selected songs by each, but I’m not really a fan of either.
    I think I like more Beatles than I do Rolling Stones though. Beatles are more pop than they are rock.
    References :

  23. Man In the Box Says:

    Are you a Jonas Brothers fan? Tisk tisk.
    References :

  24. ☮♥I am Mrs.Paul McCartney♥☮ Says:

    Um…The Beatles practically invented Rock and Roll….just listen to their songs. They are not all about love.

    Listen to Helter Skelter and Revolution and you’ll know what I mean..

    I LOVE THE BEATLES!!!!

    p.s. Early Beatles were rock and roll…like Chuck Berry….and they were pop as well…..as they got older, their music got harder.

    The Beatles practically schooled The Stones.

    and Sarsar is completely right. Rock and Roll doesnt have to be all wild.
    References :

  25. gretsch16pc Says:

    After some 40 years later you’ll still here their songs on the air and you can’t say that about half the rock & rolll bands within the last 10 or 20 years. The same goes for other historical rock groups like The Doors, Led Zeppelin, CCR, Emerson, Lake and Palmer and the list goes on.

    77
    References :
    Rock n Roll !

  26. Tow-mas Says:

    You mean like the garage rock stuff like Motor City Five and The Stooges? well that stuff was less popular. And acting like"local bands" are somehow different is just being an elitest dickhead.
    References :

  27. Greg R Says:

    Because music aficionados recognize that not every song has to have the "guitars on 11" in order for it to be rock and roll. Both the Stones and the Beatles were blessed with great guitarists (Harrison and Richard), good songwriters (Jagger/Richard and Lennon/McCartney with the occasional good Harrison tune in there, too), and the willingness to experiment with their sound. Both have albums that continually rank critically among the finest in rock music ever.

    Yes there were bands that "rocked" harder, like Pink Floyd for one, but they haven’t had as wide an influence as those two bands have. (And don’t take that for a Floyd diss..I like them and have paid good money to see them live.)
    References :

  28. chevypirate00 Says:

    Only because they spurred the Brittish invasion of the American music scene. Best rock song ever recorded is Sympathy for the Devil, next to Jimi’s Voodoo Chile that is. And at the time was reviled by the "establishment". The Stones have recorded over 40 albums during their long career, bands nowadays last must less time before their sound goes stale and meaningless.
    I was there, you were not.

    Led Zeppelin, The Who, Pink Floyd, Cream, all Brittish, all legends, all pushed the envelope back then and were the building blocks for every other band after them.
    References :

  29. imaginepeacejl Says:

    WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?! "ridiculously tame"?! they were pretty much the fathers of rock ‘n’ roll! especially the Beatles! maybe some other stuff was better, but it originated from them! they were the beginning!
    References :

  30. pinballwizard317 Says:

    Because they are?
    References :

  31. BEATLES= LOVE Says:

    rock isn’t about the craziness or tameness of the song.
    it’s lyrics, tempo, everything. The Beatles set the stage for rock. yes, they are more pop in their early days, but look at songs like Helter Skelter, Back In The USSR.
    so no, they are not hard core up-beat "un-tame"… but they are rock, real, inspirational, AMAZING rock!
    References :

  32. pinkmissmarilyn Says:

    Actually, The Beatles were pretty hardcore in their early days. They got their big break in Hamburg- one of the raunchiest cities around, and were only "cleaned up" when they returned to Liverpool and the Cavern Club where they met Brian Epstien.

    And what exactly are the bands you are comparing them to? Just to ease my curiosity.
    References :

  33. Renae P Says:

    hmmmm

    i wonder?

    well

    i think

    THEY ARE!!!
    References :
    8|

Leave a Comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.