Alex Rox 

не знаю с чего начать тема конечно глупая обе группы по своему хороши но их музыку трудно сравнить,Битлз несомненно самая великая рок - группа всех времён(это исторический факт широко признаний; критиками и многими рок музыкантами).Роллинг Стоунз она самая великая "live" Рок группа всех времён(поскольку до сих пор отлично выступают живьём, и тоже потому что про держались столько лет и не распались как Битлз например).Но дорогой Дон который открыл эту тему назвал Битлз попсой а Стоунз группой намного лучше Битлз... что Просто Возмущает....Поскольку вы дорогой Дон можете любить или не любить Битлз Дела Ваше О вкусах не спорят но называть Битлз попсой а также говорить что Стоунз намного лучше чем Битлы при этом не обосновывая вашу так называемую "теорию" просто глупо. и вот почему.
1.Битлз и Ролинг Стоунз совершено разные группы игравшие в разных стилях. Стоунз во основном Американский блюз с английской интерпретацией и одно время они играли психоделию а потом снова вернулись к корням рока - блюзу. Музыка Стоунз была грубоватая и шершавая вот личиее от Битлз музыка которых была почти всегда жизнерадостной(хотя бы в начале их карьеры).Битлз за свою не долгую карьеру смогли дотронутся почти да каждого стиля музыки начиная с мерси-бита и кончая психоделией.
2.Роллинг Стоунз некогда не били так же оригинал-ни как Битлз роллинг стоунз вообще то играли практический всегда один и тот же блюз который уже существовал.Битлз же всегда стремились к чему то новому с каждым шагом открывая новые сферы для рок и поп музыки.Роллинг Стоунз Не продвигали Музыку как Битлз. Стоунз писали отличные песни как "satisfaction" но при этом не давая музыки столько сколько дали Битлз. Стоунз тоже записали психоделический альбом но он не бил новшеством в музыке во отличие от "сержанта" Битлз,и не мел большого успеха. После него в 68 Роллинг Стоунз вернулись к кореням своим к блузу которой продолжали отлично играть и давать концерты на больших аренах(котрие невсегда проходили спокойно).
более того стоунз начали писать свою музыку во основном только из за Битлз чтоб быть им Битлам достойными соперниками в этой сфере.
3. успехом своим стоунз многим обязанный Битлз потому что Стоунз были противоположностью Битлз что во многом и привлекало к ним внимание. Битлз были пай мальчиками а стоунз хулиганами. делающие черт знает что и вызывающими таким образом к себе постоянное внимание в прессе.
4.Битлз оставили намного большее влияние на поп и рок музыки чем кто либо другой включая Стоунз.
Уже не говоря о том что если б не Битлз не одна британская группа не добилась бы успеха в Америке.
Да и на моду У Битлз влияние было больше чем у любого другого(возьмите в пример причёски Битлз).
п.с Битлз это не попса а Рок,и у Битлз болшая часть музыки построена больше чем на трех окордах.хотя это не так важно....

Alex Red
ну да мне тоже всегда больше нравился вариант серчерз,как то лучше у них вышло.А вот версия
it's in her kiss у searchers хуже вышла чем у холлиз,тут я думаю спора не будет.

:D

а вот ещё отрывок на туже тему....

June 1967, Epic Records released a 10-song version of Evolution, shorn of "When Your Light's Turned On," "Leave Me" and "Water On the Brain," but with "Carrie Anne" added. The album never charted, but "Carrie Anne" did reached #9, a fair achievement at the time and one of the group's better showings in the U.S., only "Bus Stop" and "Stop Stop Stop" having done better.

The year 1967 saw the band release not one, but two long-players, Evolution and Butterfly, that can only be regarded as classics of the psychedelic era. Either record can command a place alongside the Beatles' Revolver or Sergeant Pepper, or even that Pink Floyd standard, Piper At The Gates of Dawn. To date, however, only hard-core Hollies fans have ever picked up on either album, a genuine tragedy for those who are missing them.

Evolution is probably the equal of the best psychedelic album ever recorded by any band. Released in June 1967, just as the Beatles' Sergeant Pepper album was sweeping the media and the public, Evolution was a 12-song classic in its own right. It has its weird, spaced-out side, embodied in songs like "Water On the Brain," and material ("Ye Olde Toffee Shoppe") dressed up in the obligatory tinkling harpsichords and tremolo effects, as well as softly sung ditties ("Stop Right There") about druggy, romantic states of mind.

But it also has balls, something most psychedelic albums were missing in their quest to depict the next level of cosmic consciousness. In the course of writing drug songs, The Hollies never gave up their core purpose as a performing band. Anyone who loves Beatles' songs like "Fixing A Hole" for its loud guitar break may well melt over "Then The Heartaches Begin," "When Your Light's Turned On" or "Have You Ever Loved Somebody," the latter a Clarke-Hicks-Nash original that is, unfortunately, better known for the smoother, poppier version done by the Searchers as a single.

Allan Clarke was largely responsible for both the album opener, "Then the Heartaches Begin," as well as "Have You Ever Loved Somebody," the two best hard rock songs on the album. Of "Have You Ever Loved Somebody," he admits, "I rather liked the Searchers' version. I felt they should have had a hit with it."

Corvin
все же они играли психоделию --- вот отрывок из журнала great goldmine и опубликованы в сайте hollies.

After the Beatles released Sergeant Pepper in June 1967, The Hollies decided to try their hand at psychedelic music with a new song, largely written by Nash, called "King Midas In Reverse."

The group's most elaborate recorded work to date, "Midas," which was recorded on August 3 and 4, 1967, was filled with all kinds of sound effects and surprising timbres, a string section that sounded positively unearthly in its density and texture, and a festive mood that made it one of the most cheerful pieces of psychedelia ever issued. It took some persuading to get Ron Richards to release "Midas" as a single, and once it was out, it never did more than brush the charts in England or America, reaching #18 at home and #51 in the States.

Although it was a disappointment for Nash, who liked the song well enough to perform it acoustically during his early years with Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, "Midas" was only a small part of the most beguiling period in The Hollies' history.

Juri Rosenfeld
молдец сказал верние слова:Д
я их с детство люблю а вокал у них необыкновенный

хотелось бы он них поговорить группа та на все сто.
кстати они были вторые по популярности после битлз как группа в стиле мерсибита

First off, you focused mostly on a minor point I made, which was Presley's comeback in 1960 from the Army revived rock's obviously sagging fortunes. That is entirely true and facts bear it out - In the two years Presley was in the Army 18 of the 37 #1 Records were pure pop songs, with three others being novelty songs. The majority of those "rock" songs that were #1 hits were ballads and instrumentals, which were deemed "less offensive". During that time there were just 8 uptempo rock songs to hit to the top of the charts, and two of them were leftover recordings by Presley himself.

To say that it was coincidence - both rock's bottoming out when he was gone and its ensuing rise in popularity when he came back is utterly indefensible historically. He was the reason in both cases and you can't affect an entire INDUSTRY that way without unprecedented influence.

Furthermore, in the period you mentioned, from 1960-1963, Presley had 19 Top Twenty hits, which is more than than The Shirelles had their entire 18 year career, so to say they were "more popular" then he was during that time is flat out inaccurate. He sold far more records than anyone during those years and that information is very easy to find.

So you claim that Presley didn't save rock despite the fact that in the two years he was absent from the scene rock music had by far its lowest success since it's mainstream popularization in 1956 and after he returned that success rose to his pre-Army levels. THEN you go on to say that the Beatles however DID save rock in 1964, despite the fact that from 1961-1963 were some of rock's most fertile years and therefore didn't require saving from anything. How do you "save" something from tremendous success and creative expansion it had during that era preceeding their arrival?

But that early 60's point on my part was just one small example of his influence, not my main argument. Presley's primary influence from 1954-1958, even more specifically '56-'58, was unmatched by anyone at any time in any form of music. There is no getting around it, no debating it, no questioning it without looking clueless. He changed the entire world - from the way people acted, danced, dressed and looked, to the way popular culture impacted society, to the way the entire "leisure-time" American ecomomy was based, shifting from centering around adult buying power to teenage buying power (today nearly every pop culture item is marketed towards youth, from movies to TV to music. It wasn't before him).

Now, did the Beatles influence things in rock music and society overall? HELL YES! On my list they'd be #2 taking everything into account, and comfortably so. But you saying that without the Beatles there'd be no Byrds as one of your major points... well how about this one - without Elvis there'd be no Beatles! I think that's a little bigger of a deal.

You also say that the Beatles and Dylan encouraged others to write their own music. I know they did, but they were hardly unique in that regard. Fats Domino was writing his own rock music in 1949. Little Richard and Chuck Berry were in 1955. Buddy Holly in 1957. That's just SOME of hundreds who were doing so very successfully before Dylan and the Beatles, all of whom influenced the Beatles besides, so if you're handing out credit for the Beatles influencing others to write, you have to go further back and credit the ones before them for it too.

You saying that the Beatles have more influence on today's music is also questionable logic. Why is influence on RIGHT NOW more important than influence on the entire history of rock 'n' roll? If that's the case I'll say that the Sugar Hill Gang or Afrika Bambaataa or Run DMC is more influential in music than the Beatles are RIGHT NOW, simply because rap has more widespread popularity than Beatles-esque rock does today. That's just a fact, look at sales figures over the past year if you doubt it.

But I'm not saying that because "influence" means over ALL of rock history, not just one minute of it. Add up all the influence over the years, see what preceeded an artist and what followed in his wake in order to chart it accurately and there's your answer and that answer is pretty clear. It is not discrediting the Beatles one iota to say they finish second to Presley in influence. But it's just plain fact that Presley had more influence overall, most specifically in rock 'n' roll ITSELF being popularized which is the most important influence there can possibly be.

People don't seem to understand that rock 'n' roll was a MINOR THING before him. Less than 10% of the population knew what it was, even though it'd already been around for five years. Within five months of his first RCA single in 1956 less than 10% of the population WOULDN'T know what it was. Before him rock music sales accounted for a tiny fraction of all music purchased, five years after he came onto the scene it accounted for HALF of all music purchased. No other style in history grew that fast. Rock music became successful and allowed the Beatles and everyone else to play it in the future because of Presley's overwhelming presence which forced it into the mainstream and then to the forefront of that mainstream, that simply is undebatable.

Put it this way. Take any one artist in rock history out of the equation and things may be different. Without Chuck Berry the guitar and songwriting of rock wouldn't be the same. Without Bob Dylan the lyrics wouldn't be as wide-ranging. Without James Brown rhythm would be less important. Yes, without the Beatles there'd be a huge void in many respects, no question about it... But without Elvis Presley we wouldn't be having this discussion at all because rock 'n' roll would not have been anything more than a small, niche style that would've came and went in relatively short order.

Rock was not invented by Elvis Presley by any means, but it SUCCEEDED to the extent it did because of him. You can not be any more influential than that and there's simply no credible way to say differently. Sorry. Hope you don't think I'm rippin' on you.
Sampson

No. I think if it's PURE musical influence it should be Chuck Berry at #1. Not only for defining the role of the guitar but for completely and forever changing the entire style of songwriting. In second place would be James Brown for popularizing one massive style (soul) and for actually inventing another (funk) that led to a third (rap, through sampling and the same rhythmic components), in addition to being the most imitated live performer ever (Mick Jagger on down to Michael Jackson are basically trying to be him on stage). Elvis and the Beatles would fall in the 3-5 slots somewhere in that regard.

But I don't think this list is based on pure musical influence and that it does - and should - take into account overall influence within music. In other words, not just the construction of the music itself but the way that music affects society, changing the entire culture, and for that there's simply no question Presley is number one.

Look at it this way - rock 'n' roll itself, which had been around for a few years before he came on the scene, was still a minor segment of music getting no more than a small share of the market, and even then the mainstream establishment tried their best to supress it, going so far as to ban it outright in many communities on radio and from being performed live, television wouldn't show it (Ed Sullivan said he'd NEVER have a rocker and Elvis specifically on his show). But when Presley hit in '56 he was SO big, SO popular, SO overwhelming that he singlehandedly made that effort fail and allowed rock 'n' roll to become the biggest single selling form of music in America within two years. It suddenly was all over radio, the live tours in 1956 broke thirty year old attendance records from New York to California and rockers faces were all over television with Presley going on Sullivan's show three times to record ratings. The mainstream capitulated because of his popularity. They simply had no choice.

я в этом сайте в силках людей одного нашёл писал он много интересного так я у него то и спросил должны ли битлы быть на первом месте вот его ответ.

ну то что чак берри там меня не удивлает он один из наиболее влиятельныйх гитаристов всех времен и один из первых рок исполнителей которые писали сам себе музыку.Поскольку этот список 100 наиболее влиятельныйх исполнителей он должен быть высоко.Да и извинете за не правильный в начале перевод был не правильны великих исполнителей а влиятельныйх.

da grupa to horoshay.skachivaete s internata ih pesni.vot dve horoshih programki skachavaite ottuda http://www.winmx.com/,http://www.slsk.org/.skachaite programi tam mnogo naidete klassnoi muziki/:D

pet sounds albom kotori izmenil muzuku v 1966 godu.dim poslushai ego obezatelno.