The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones [Archive] - HungAngels

TSMichelleAustin

12-17-2011, 07:25 AM

Hmmmmph, young lady! Me thinks you're a fan of the Blackeyed Peas.

Oh hell NO!!!!

I love Classic rock bands but Beatles I think are over rated and its only a few stones songs I like. But Id listen to Stones over Beatles. But I loved Lennon alone. See I love Jerry Lee Lewis over Elvis and think if he never married his cousin, he would of been bigger than Elvis, just my opinion! LOL But there are many classic rock groups I love like Lynard Skynard, and Fleetwood Mac.

Dino Velvet

12-17-2011, 07:29 AM

Oh hell NO!!!!

I love Classic rock bands but Beatles I think are over rated and its only a few stones songs I like. But Id listen to Stones over Beatles. But I loved Lennon alone. See I love Jerry Lee Lewis over Elvis and think if he never married his cousin, he would of been bigger than Elvis, just my opinion! LOL But there are many classic rock groups I love like Lynard Skynard, and Fleetwood Mac.

Always love Skynyrd. Gotten drunk, high, laid, cheated on, and hustled in pool all listening to Skynyrd.

Lynyrd Skynyrd-Cheatin' Women - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ7oQdG4KdE)

http://www.morethings.com/music/lynyrd_skynyrd/lynyrd-skynyrd-112.jpg

Dino Velvet

12-17-2011, 07:31 AM

The Blackeyed Peas is the N-Word of music.

Offended by the "N word" - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1NUposXVQ)

EvonRose

12-17-2011, 07:33 AM

Fleetwood mac, bejees, heart are some of my favorites...

kilakali

12-17-2011, 07:57 AM

Rolling Stones hands down they put on a way better show than what I have seen from the old beatles film footage.. I perfer Styx, Fleetwood Mac, and REO Speedwagon.

Willie Escalade

12-17-2011, 08:02 AM

Stones...especially for longevity...

TSMichelleAustin

12-17-2011, 08:04 AM

OMG BeeGees, Styx, Heart, Bread and REO are some of my other favorites! When I was writing earlier i was drawling a blank!

Dino Velvet

12-17-2011, 08:09 AM

Stones...especially for longevity...

Yeah. Fuck John Lennon. I hate quitters.

EvonRose

12-17-2011, 08:10 AM

OMG BeeGees, Styx, Heart, Bread and REO are some of my other favorites! When I was writing earlier i was drawling a blank!

Gurrrllll I love fleetwood,hearts,and bejees I'm sure theres more but just like you I'm blanking...

TSMichelleAustin

12-17-2011, 08:22 AM

Gurrrllll I love fleetwood,hearts,and bejees I'm sure theres more but just like you I'm blanking...

Everytime I hear Heart I go crazy except for barracuda, cant stand that song. Pat Benatar another rocker I love! I have her anthology album! LOL

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 08:27 AM

The Stones are rock and roll. The Beatles were pop at best.

"she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah". Wow- powerful.

Also- I think Dave is drunk.

EvonRose

12-17-2011, 08:30 AM

Everytime I hear Heart I go crazy except for barracuda, cant stand that song. Pat Benatar another rocker I love! I have her anthology album! LOL

omg alone, dreams, never are some of my faces from heart. I live for rock ballads...

EvonRose

12-17-2011, 08:30 AM

The Stones are rock and roll. The Beatles were pop at best.

"she loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah". Wow- powerful.

Also- I think Dave is drunk.

Im drunk...

Jamie French

12-17-2011, 09:00 AM

Anybody who has ever picked up a guitar to write music knows the Beatles are the benchmark for contemporary songwriting. Anybody who has ever picked up a guitar to get laid... well, that's what the Stones are for.

Can't stand the Stones. Too linear, too trapped in mid tempo 4 on the floor back beats. Too much pentatonic/blues scale. If they ever wrote a song like, "Your Mother Should Know", Being For The Benefit Of Mister Kite", "Piggies", etc. - anything that had a color other than beer bottle brown... yeah I might could stand 'em. I'll take a chromatic scale that resolves into a flurry of seventh chords anyday over 1-4-5 twelve bar blues dirt rock. (honorable mentions: Mothers Little Helper, Ruby Tuesday, Paint It Black.)

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 09:06 AM

Im drunk...

I am totally OK with that.

Prospero

12-17-2011, 09:45 AM

Oh and fuck Brian Jones too - he quit early.
Talking longevity though Paul McCartney is still playing up a storm - even though the muse deserted him a long time ago. Friend saw his three hour gig last week in London and said he was 'the business."

I saw the Stones twice - a good many years ago and about five years back. Better showmen now - but kind of like cartoons. The Strolling Bones.

Oh Jamie - the Stones did write a few more half decent songs. Lady Jane, Sitting on The fence, Angie, Waiting For a Friend, 2,000 Light years from Home.... just a handful though I'd have to agree they are hugely stuck in a grove otherwise. A groovy groove sometimes.

Jamie French

12-17-2011, 10:04 AM

Virtually every time the Stones tried to color outside the lines it was in response to something the Beatles had just done. The Beatles in their time, had only one true musical rival and that was of course The Beach Boys. Pet Sounds just fuckin' destroys.

I understand that some people simply need that raw, rock energy the Stones are claimed to deliver. It's too adolescent of a mind set for me. When listening to music my ears comes first not my pulse. Plus, there are a ton of bands that deliver 'dirty and raw' in a far more dangerous and immediate way than the Stones could ever have conjured so I just have no use for 'em.

Oh and fuck Brian Jones too - he quit early.
Talking longevity though Paul McCartney is still playing up a storm - even though the muse deserted him a long time ago. Friend saw his three hour gig last week in London and said he was 'the business."

I saw the Stones twice - a good many years ago and about five years back. Better showmen now - but kind of like cartoons. The Strolling Bones.

Oh Jamie - the Stones did write a few more half decent songs. Lady Jane, Sitting on The fence, Angie, Waiting For a Friend, 2,000 Light years from Home.... just a handful though I'd have to agree they are hugely stuck in a grove otherwise. A groovy groove sometimes.

Prospero

12-17-2011, 10:09 AM

I think I agree with that Jamie. And pet Sounds is overlooked. it was a masterpiece and Smile (recently finally issues as Brian Wilson intended is a little too fragmented - by then his mind too shattered by drugs.). But Good vibrations. No pop writer ever came close. McCartney was in awe of Wilson i think.

BellaBellucci

12-17-2011, 10:38 AM

George Harrison (w/Jeff Lynne) > The Stones > The Beatles.

Ixnay on the Beach Boysay. They were way too bland and pretty for my taste. Even their darker stuff sounded like it came from a sunny beach paradise. We have a name for that kind of music, and it's not rock, it's pop. My .02.

~BB~

BellaBellucci

12-17-2011, 10:40 AM

Oh hell NO!!!!

I love Classic rock bands but Beatles I think are over rated and its only a few stones songs I like. But Id listen to Stones over Beatles. But I loved Lennon alone. See I love Jerry Lee Lewis over Elvis and think if he never married his cousin, he would of been bigger than Elvis, just my opinion! LOL But there are many classic rock groups I love like Lynard Skynard, and Fleetwood Mac.

How do you feel about Queen?

Queen - Radio Ga Ga - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t63_HRwdAgk)

~BB~

noble1337

12-17-2011, 11:50 AM

of course the Beatles are better. even the stones would say they are. they also have more credibility from other musicians, which is much more important than their greater amounts of fame.
**edit**
just reaad jamie french's post... completely agree.
im not saying the stones arent great, its just that, this argument is so old and one sided (in terms of people who know music), making a topic about it seems kinda lame. sorry :(

Prospero

12-17-2011, 11:52 AM

I think cheese is better than apricots.

Jamie French

12-17-2011, 11:54 AM

Don't give half a shit if it's rock or pop, zydeco or free form jazz... I'm with whomever writes the best music. If you think about the old Sunkist commercials and surfboards everytime you hear The Beach Boys then you haven't heard The Beach boys. Brian Wilson was unmatched in contemporary music with his ability to compose vocal harmonies - until Queen came along.

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 12:37 PM

I think cheese is better than apricots.

A slice of sweet apricot on top of a piece of sharp white cheddar is incredible.

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 12:40 PM

I really can't believe that the Beatles are leading this poll.

Anyone ever watch "The Monkees"?

Kari

12-17-2011, 12:41 PM

Anyone ever watch "The Monkees"?My dad used to watch them...

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 12:47 PM

My dad used to watch them...
The Monkees were in reruns all over the place- maybe even on Nick at Nite at one point, I don't remember.

Basically a parody of the early Beatles. I only mention it for sake of perspective.

Prospero

12-17-2011, 12:49 PM

I don't see what The Monkees (a totally artificial and manufactured pop band who had virtually no musical talent) has to do with The Beatles. Lennon-McCratney and latterly Harrison were very gifted songwriters and forged a new musical sound (honed by George Martin) . it was a long time ago but the ripples of their influence are still widely felt. Scarcely Schubert or Mozart as some of their fans claimed (still claim?) but certainly among the best songwriters of the rock and pop era. (Yep Cole Porter and Gershwin and Irving Berlin were greater but from different musical world). The Stones were mightily grittier as have been scores of other bands. Very few (beachboys accepted) were as consistently able to create good tunes. As a cultural phenomenon they remain unrivalled.

noble1337

12-17-2011, 12:54 PM

hippifried

12-17-2011, 12:55 PM

Stones...especially for longevity...
Yeah. Ain't geriatric nock 'n' roll just grand?
Who actually put out more music, the Stones in 40+ years, or the Beatles in 8? I'm not exactly sure how to qualify that quantification, but in sheer prolificacy, the Beatles have to be right up there with the likes of Duke Ellington. They changed the face of rock. They were at the forefront of every musical change in the most musically volitile decade in the lifetime of anybody in here. They have to get my nod, just because of the lack of a preconceived genre & their cultural influence on the whole world. Do y'all have any idea how many people got their first grasp of musical & harmonic theory from Beatle books? They aded a complexity to rock that hadn't been there before.

Now don't get me wrong. I love the Stones. I have to wonder though: If Decca hadn't been so distraught over their fuckup of not signing the Beatles when they had the chance, would they have signed the Stones? The UK was top heavy with "blues purists" in '62 & '63, & everybody was doing covers. I don't know what PR genius started that whole "mods vs rockers" silliness back in '63 or '64, but the Stones were able to cash in on it big time by becoming the poster for those anti-establishment "rockers" who made the Beatles look clean cut. They showed signs of something unique & brilliant, but it was scattered. It took them 5 or 6 years to put together a solid album. It was '68 when they finally got their shit together & started putting out the 3 album signiature that became what we think of as the Rolling Stones today. Those 3 albums are: Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, & Sticky Fingers.

It's all rock 'n' roll.

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 01:00 PM

As a cultural phenomenon they remain unrivalled.

I can agree with this. But to me it's another hallmark of "pop".

The question/poll boils down to Pop v. Rock in a sense. I want rock. I want 501s and a motorcycle, not Nehru jackets and mopeds.

I dig some pop- and I have a broad definition of the genre. I'd even classify Big Star as pop though they never had a really wide audience (yet they are cited by so many musicians as an influence).

Prospero

12-17-2011, 01:02 PM

I'd disagree with the view that the stones didn't do anything great until the late sixties. There were some wonderfully powerful songs on early albums too - It's all over, The last Time, 19th Nervous breakdown, Have ou Seen Your Mother Baby (Standing in The Shadows) and not the least Satisfaction, plus many many more. Yes they were r and b purists back then - and Brian jones was a powerful force in shaping that early music. But there was fire in their bellies from the earliest days. Keith's autobiography is good on it all. Worth a read.

check out their version of an early Beatles song and then The Beatles own version. The truth is rarely pure and never simple.

I Wanna Be Your Man- The Rolling Stones - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-G6tc1w_7g)

Beatles - I Wanna Be Your Man - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-CjxASY3to&feature=related)

EvonRose

12-17-2011, 01:02 PM

I like Celine Dion....

Prospero

12-17-2011, 01:06 PM

Interesting distinction MdR Dave

So rock 501s and a motorbike and pop = nehru jackets and mopeds. But which are geuinely "revolutionary" and innovative. Perhaps the latter. Who are the heirs of Kerouac and Ginsberg and Burroughs? Of that real sense of rebellion? Perhaps the Beatles (when under the influence of Leary and the opened mindedness he proclaimed) before they reverted to popness in their solo days. The Stones are actually very conservative while offered a facade of revolt. They became and remain millionaires with bad habits.

The FBI trailed Lennon. I doubt if they ever watched the stones except as drug fiends.

Prospero

12-17-2011, 01:06 PM

Evon - check out the Celine Dion track i just posted on what are you listening to now.

russtafa

12-17-2011, 01:48 PM

Stones i suppose or a thousand other bands but i did love helter skelter

alpha2117

12-17-2011, 02:14 PM

Beatles wrote better stuff in their short time, Stones gave a better live show largely because John Lennon was a pretty naff Rythym Guitar player (they've isolated his stuff and it's okay at best) the guy could flat out write a great song though. The Stones is just a Blues Bar band made good, they play good stuff but the Beatles created art with some of their stuff - hell a lot of people credit something like Helter Skelter as seminal Punk which sums up how broad their reach was.

Queen had the best rock vocalist ever - no contest.

U2 still amaze me, they have the sort of longevity the Stones had but they still manage to pull out single sales even after all these years, heck of a good band live too. They were like the Stones in that they were very simple and formulaic and then somewhere aloong the line they decided to experiment and they lifted up to a different level creatively. I actually saw them play a whole set when Adam was out sick and they practiced everything in the afternoon before the show with their Bass roadie so it was a big empty stadium in the mdidle of the day with no atmosphere and they were just amazingly tight and it was that moment I realised why they had been so succesful.

Prospero

12-17-2011, 02:17 PM

Stones i suppose or a thousand other bands but i did love helter skelter

so did Charlie Manson and his girls...lol

Stavros

12-17-2011, 03:21 PM

I am not voting in this poll. I object to the options.

The coverage of the bands in the 1960s was pretty tame compared to the vicious, often illegal and permanently intrusive media we have today. Thus, as I recall it, the Beatles (up until the encounter with the Maharishi) were the wholesome, family-friendly band while the Stones were a threatening presence, yet as people, and musically they were never so far apart until the dividing line: Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band, at the time an innovation in popular music, and one that was never equalled.

Although Jamie French has the musical nous to understand what the difference is between the Beatles and the Stones, to compare the Beatles to the Beach Boys is equivalent to comparing Burgundy to urine, the mere sound of the Beach Boys is offensive. I had a close friend who listened to Pet Sounds every day; I almost became a homicidal maniac as a consequence. Never again.

Also in the 1960s, hard though it is to believe now, there was another poll, on one of the pirate radio stations I think: Donovan or Dylan?

In retrospect, I can do without the Beatles or the Stones, who are now of importance only in the context of the social anthropology of popular culture. Dylan, on the other hand, but only in the 1960s, inherited the awful mantle of Woody Guthrie, and took that particular tradition to a new level, taking popular music with it. One could argue he comes from a different tradition, but how far apart is the earthy folk music of Woody Guthrie and the folk blues of Robert Johnson and Blind Lemon Jefferson, to name but two? These musical traditions I suggest are not exclusive, they interact and interweave across time.

Although Dylan was called Judas at the Albert Hall concert in 1966 for using electricity to make music (folk purists are a breed apart), it was Dylan who more successfully crossed boundaries and created something new which nobody else could match.

Prospero

12-17-2011, 03:28 PM

Stavros wrote: "the mere sound of the Beach Boys is offensive."

An opinion, caustically held. Indefensible by any objective arguments. Hey ho.

As for Dylan he was not part of the discussion here - and is I agree in a wholly different realm. He alone of all the artists produced in fifty or sixty years of rock and pop could even begin to be considered for a Nobel prize. (as was rumoured this year.)

Erika1487

12-17-2011, 03:59 PM

No question it's the Stones....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia1UjNBK_3Y

alpha2117

12-17-2011, 04:13 PM

Sadly Dylan sucks ass live... saw him twice and he was terrible and a miserable f*ck with it. He wrote some good songs but vocally he was rubbish. He's also way overrated in terms of influence, he wasn't particularly innovative as a folk musician and when he moved to electric stuff he wasn't doing anything new either. It wasn't like there was a groundswell of Dylanesque music in his wake either. He kind of came in mid way in both those particular styles. He wrote some great songs but he really didn't do anything particularly new. He really had about 7 or 8 brilliantly productive years and then he's kind of wandered through the last few decades bringing out pretty mediocre stuff. I dont want to sound like I hate the guy because I think he is a terrific songwriter but I have never understood the hyperbole over him. I think it's just that he was around at such a pivotal time in American history and people perhaps relate him with those changes - he epitomises the 60's musically to many Americans I guess. After that his output just isn't as good although he still brought out the occasional pearler like Knockin on Heavens Door in 72 his stuff wasn't as fresh as it had been - its probably hard to be the voice of disaffected youth when your in your 30's and beyond.

The Beach Boys did a lot of naff generic stuff early but Pet Sounds is a masterwork of production. Like em or hate em you have to give them that. It's like Abba when Bjorn and Benny changed the way pop music sounded in the mid 70's by using some real simple techniques in a totally new way.

Oh and the guy who really broke all the bounadries and rules was Johnny Cash. I believe at one stage about 1 in 5 records sold in the US were Johnny Cash records. He crossed country, rock, folk ... people just bought his stuff. He could sing a gospel style song and still seem like a badass doing it. Even right at the end he still had an undeniable power

Johnny Cash -God's Gonna Cut You Down - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auzYgVosJA&feature=related)

Johnny Cash Hurt - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go)

Maxwell Silver

12-17-2011, 04:56 PM

The Stones were coat tail riders to the Beatles. Just look how they 'managed' to get into videos of the Beatles.

wbmando

12-17-2011, 05:11 PM

The Beatles were MUCH better musicians.

Merkurie

12-17-2011, 06:43 PM

I cant cosign to the Beatles being much better musicians. Their work is heavily studio produced so there is no way to tell. The Beatles were far more imaginitve musically no doubt. But I feel the Stones were the superior Rock Band. IMHO, Mick is the best front man in Rock. Charlie is a stronger drummer than Ringo and I am not going to force Keith and George into a contest because that would dissrespect both of them.

The Beatles were a global cultural phenomenon, the world is literally a different place since the Beatles, but that does'nt mean I like them better than the Rolling Stones. I would rather be in the Rolling Stones than the Beatles. I listen to the Stones more than the Beatles. But, the Beatles made a lot of songs no one can touch.

trish

12-17-2011, 07:29 PM

I had to go with the Stones.

Dino Velvet

12-17-2011, 09:38 PM

Oh and the guy who really broke all the bounadries and rules was Johnny Cash. I believe at one stage about 1 in 5 records sold in the US were Johnny Cash records. He crossed country, rock, folk ... people just bought his stuff. He could sing a gospel style song and still seem like a badass doing it. Even right at the end he still had an undeniable power

Johnny Cash -God's Gonna Cut You Down - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7auzYgVosJA&feature=related)

Johnny Cash Hurt - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmVAWKfJ4Go)

I've been a fan of Johnny Cash my whole life. Here's another great cover.

Johnny Cash - The Mercy Seat - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGGSTiDOjKU)

MdR Dave

12-17-2011, 11:29 PM

which are geuinely "revolutionary" and innovative. Perhaps the latter. Who are the heirs of Kerouac and Ginsberg and Burroughs? Of that real sense of rebellion? Perhaps the Beatles. . .

The Beatles/Stones question is a matter of opinion and personal preference, of course. The Beat legacy question, though again mostly opinion based on how you define that legacy, could probably be assigned to a third band: Grateful Dead.

It's not a direct link, but you can trace the evolution. It even has a common player- Neal Cassady, Kerouac's man crush, driver (at least initially) for the Merry Pranksters (who staged the infamous Acid Tests) and hero of the Beats-turned-hippies before the whole hippie thing was derailed by hedonism and drug abuse. (People take what they want from anything offered- unfortunately most "hippies" just wanted to get high.)

Dino Velvet

12-17-2011, 11:32 PM

The Beatles/Stones question is a matter of opinion and personal preference, of course.

Exactly. I was careful to ask which people liked and not who is better. I'm not picky and appreciate all the posts especially Jamie's who's life is music.

russtafa

12-18-2011, 12:57 AM

i liked Jerry Lee Lewis because of the way he performed and the way he divorced his wives extra cheap fashion

Dino Velvet

12-18-2011, 01:06 AM

i liked Jerry Lee Lewis because of the way he performed and the way he divorced his wives extra cheap fashion

His trash was also Robert Blake's but Beretta knows more about the Sanitation Dept.

Voyager7

12-18-2011, 03:41 PM

I had to go with the Stones.
... and I bet you got far away eyes....

Rolling Stones - Far away Eyes 2007 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLU8C9WeIH8)

gotta luv that pedal steel

Falrune

12-18-2011, 04:50 PM

Beatles - not only did they lead the British Invasion, but they also were the first big group to experiment with the 'psychedelic' music that followed about 3 years later. The Beatles were leaders... the Stones were/are just sloppy noise makers.

EvonRose

12-18-2011, 05:20 PM

They all suck!!!

Rebbeca Black is awesome!

Prospero

12-18-2011, 05:31 PM

They all suck!!!

Rebbeca Black is awesome!

lol - WHO! is Rebecca Black

EvonRose

12-18-2011, 06:14 PM

lol - WHO! is Rebecca Black

Omg she's like the only best singer in there world!!!!! like better than Mariah, Whitney, Celine, Christina combined!!!!

Ecstatic

12-18-2011, 09:12 PM

The Stones are a great band (though for me they were always at their best when Brian was still alive), but the Beatles have had such an extensive impact on our culture at large, not just our music, and they remain the number one band for this ole timer. (But don't forget the Who...or the Kinks...or the Dead...or......)

TSMichelleAustin

12-18-2011, 09:17 PM

How do you feel about Queen?

Queen - Radio Ga Ga - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t63_HRwdAgk)

~BB~

Once again another band I love! Forgot about them! Actually I love Queen more than beatles or stones!

Dino Velvet

12-18-2011, 09:52 PM

Once again another band I love! Forgot about them! Actually I love Queen more than beatles or stones!

You like this one with Bowie?

Queen - 'Under Pressure' - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a01QQZyl-_I)

kilakali

12-18-2011, 10:28 PM

Omg she's like the only best singer in there world!!!!! like better than Mariah, Whitney, Celine, Christina combined!!!!
Please tell me you are joking. I just watched her youtube video "Friday". She literally made my ears bleed.

BellaBellucci

12-18-2011, 11:12 PM

Please tell me you are joking. I just watched her youtube video "Friday". She literally made my ears bleed.

Sarcasm. It's contagious, ya know?

~BB~

oifarang

12-18-2011, 11:23 PM

Give me The Who anyday.

Dino Velvet

12-18-2011, 11:31 PM

Sarcasm. It's contagious, ya know?

~BB~

Flashback! Sarcasm, passive-aggressiveness, or anything subtle is pointless on my kin from West Texas. It was weird sharing a house for 5 days with people who couldn't understand my language. On the last day I wielded a kitchen knife when one of my cousins stood too close to me while I did the dishes. I'm still haunted by these phony dirt farmers. My faith in God was taken as well which might warrant a death sentence.

Sorry. Go back to what you were talking about.

Stavros

12-18-2011, 11:35 PM

Ok I admit I diverged from the thread with my promotion of Dylan, but if we become purists, its about two bands. If you want mean, down and dirty, hard rocking swing you don't go to the Beatles but the Stones. If you want love songs, gentle harmonies, floating lilies, you go to the Beatles. For people who still listen to this stuff the options presented tick all the boxes if your tastes are diverse enough, and I think most people's on HA are.

Something I have never been able to explain: did the death of Brian Jones make any difference to the path that the Stones followed?

Merkurie

12-18-2011, 11:51 PM

Yeah I think Brian's loss changed the Stones path, but Brian was out of the band when he died. I think Keith wanted a more blues based sound than where Brian wanted to go, and there was rivalry between him and Mick I hear. I don't really know much about that split though.

It would have been fun to hear where the Beatles would have gone had they stayed together through the 70s. The Beatles are the 60s to me, and Led Zeppelin, The Stones, Queen Black Sabbath etc are the 70s. I don't know if the Beatles could have continued.

oifarang

12-18-2011, 11:57 PM

Beatles were a pop band

Stones were a rock band.

Chalk and cheese.

luvshemales

12-18-2011, 11:58 PM

This is simple The Stones are the greatest Rock and Roll Band ever, however the Beattles spoke to and about a generation and changed history. Beatles is the answer on a head to head competition or if you had to load your iPod with only one bands music.

oifarang

12-19-2011, 12:00 AM

Dead Kennedys were better than the 2 of em

luvshemales

12-19-2011, 12:22 AM

Beatles were a pop band

Stones were a rock band.

Chalk and cheese.

Beatles from Revolver on were definitely not a pop band. Listen to Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery, Abbey Road, White Album those albums my friend is some serious rock and roll music, some of the best of all-time.

Remember the Beatles only performed once live as a band after Revolver was released in August of 1966 on the rooftop of Apple HQ, not even a concert just a jam session. I bring up this point because I think to mature as a band and have songs really reflect their true identity the songs must be explored and played live to fully appreciate the essence of the song.

luvshemales

12-19-2011, 12:26 AM

Dead Kennedys were better than the 2 of em

:iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::iagree::i agree:
Too Drunk to Fuck more of a classic than Hey Jude, A Day in the Life, Let it Be or Eleanor Rigby I can see that.
:footinmouth

Dino Velvet

12-19-2011, 12:32 AM

Hey Jude, A Day in the Life, Let it Be or Eleanor Rigby

This is my issue. I know these songs are legitimate classics. I just don't like any of them. No offense intended at all. I recognize The Beatles like I would Frank Sinatra. Great talent but not my thing. I don't like The Who either and am not crazy about Zeppelin. I'm a Sabbath guy and Sabbath, Bloody Sabbath was my first album.

EvonRose

12-19-2011, 01:14 AM

Please tell me you are joking. I just watched her youtube video "Friday". She literally made my ears bleed.

hahahahahah, gotcha!

LTR_Seeker

12-19-2011, 01:20 AM

Im stones fan there still rocking even with one foot in grave lol

Merkurie

12-19-2011, 01:25 AM

I spent my teens dissing the Beatles, mainly because I was sick of listening to people go on and on about how great they were and how important John Lennon was blah blah blah.

But later after I calmed down a bit and realized how many songs they had made and how many tunes that I liked were in fact Beatles songs, I gave in and admitted that they did not suck.

They will never mean to me what they mean to my parents generation, but they did record a bloodly lot of catchy tunes.

hippifried

12-22-2011, 07:33 AM

When 'the Tami Show' was finally pared down & put together for theatrical release, the Stones' segment directly followed this performance.

JAMES BROWN & The Famous Flames 1964 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujwknJYrEm4&feature=g-vrec&context=G2b4340cRVAAAAAAAAAg)

Mick Jagger never forgave the editors.

MdR Dave

12-22-2011, 07:51 AM

When 'the Tami Show' was finally pared down & put together for theatrical release, the Stones' segment directly followed. . .

Mick Jagger never forgave the editors.
From my understanding, they followed him live. No trick of editing.

BellaBellucci

12-22-2011, 08:02 AM

robertlouis

12-22-2011, 08:56 AM

theone1982

12-22-2011, 09:06 AM

Slayer!

robertlouis

12-22-2011, 09:09 AM

Slayer!

You've go to be f*ckin' joking.

theone1982

12-22-2011, 09:20 AM

You've go to be f*ckin' joking.

Yes, I really meant Metallica!:)

hippifried

12-22-2011, 09:26 AM

From my understanding, they followed him live. No trick of editing.
Probably not. This was '64, & it was shot on film. It was a huge concert. Probably one of the first of it's kind. I can pretty much guarentee that the whole show took at least the better part of a day. I don't know the exact running time, but when I saw it in '64, it was part of a double feature. (Taboos of the World if you were wondering) I'm sure there were hours on the cutting room floor, lost forever.

BellaBellucci

12-22-2011, 09:32 AM

Neil Young has said that all bands can be categorised as either Beatles or Stones - in the example he chose, Buffalo Springfield were Beatles, Crazy Horse were more like the Stones. It's not a bad yardstick.

Personally, I love the Beatles to listen to, but no music gets you moving from the waist down better than the Stones. But then again, the Beatles are a more prominent part of my personal sexual soundtrack than the Stones....

It's a never-ending debate.

Pearl Jam = Beatles. Nirvana = Stones. Pearl Jam with Neil Young? Priceless.

Neil Young & Pearl Jam - Keep On Rockin' In The Free World Mtv Music Video Award Ceremony - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDzL_WU3mmE)

~BB~

Prospero

12-22-2011, 09:41 AM

Presumably this dichotomy contrasts the musical with the physical... as the Beatles were always a head and heart band, the Stones appealed to our sexuality and to our need to dance. In her book "Sexual Personae" Camllle Paglia personified these as the Dionysian (Stones) versus the Apollonian (Beatles) in cultural terms.

Heavy metal embraces the darkness summoned by the mid-period Stones (Their Satanic Majestie, Goats head Soup etc)but is not danceable music. The Beatles were inspired in large part by very early Motown, by rock'n'roll and, in McCartney's case, by the hollywood musical and music hall traditions but produced virtually no danceable tracks.

Suckerpunch

12-22-2011, 10:37 AM

Listen to any Keith Richards interview, they were pretty much identical. The media created the myth - The Beatles were cute ones etc, its all bullshit.

If they were so different why John & Paul give them their first (UK top 20)? with I Wanna Be Your Man. Why did they always release singles & albums after each other, rather than fight it out?

The fact is The Stones were always in awe of The Beatles as Mick Jagger put it "the four headed monster"

I personally I like The Stones but for The Beatles were always far superior due to being more versatile

russtafa

12-22-2011, 11:35 AM

My taste would be too varied but if I really have to make a decision it would be Exile On Main Street because i think it's the Stones best album

SammiValentine

12-22-2011, 11:39 AM

the beatles <3

liverpool <3

<3

Prospero

12-22-2011, 12:55 PM

Russtafa - there was a great documentary recently shown about the making of Exile on Main Street - recorded for the most part in Keith Richard's villa in France. Very, very debauched times.

needsum

12-22-2011, 04:50 PM

very tough (and very overplayed) argument. I always hear that the beatles beat the stones out of the gate as the "first rock n roll band" or whatever--I can't quite remember what the "race" was about, maybe the first song released? the thougth was that if the Stones had been the first, things would have been very different and their positions in the order of things would have been reversed.

Meh, I dunno or care about all that. All I can say is I love them both. I'm not casting a vote because I find it hard to really pick just one. But gun-to-my-head, I think I'd choose the Beatles. Their music is much more complex, and often takes me places that ths Stones can't. But then again, certain Stones songs will hit me in a way that the Beatles cannot. So its really too close to call for me. Love the posts on this one though.

And also, The Man in Black has always been a favorite of mine. When he did the cover of NIN's 'Hurt' I was floored. He definitely had a way of doing things that made you stop and listen.

Prospero

12-22-2011, 05:38 PM

Late Johnny Cash was quite remarkable and - for me - opened the door to all his earlier music.

MdR Dave

12-22-2011, 06:20 PM

[QUOTE=hippifried;1067419]Probably not. This was '64, & it was shot on film. /QUOTE]

Notsite how the year and medium affect the lineup but it definitely played out that way (according to numerous reviews/memoirs.)

There are some funny stories about the Stones reaction to following him. Watch Mick- Brown may have inspired his moves that night

I'm taking that info with a grain of salt, though- I saw it on the webz.

robertlouis

12-23-2011, 04:58 AM

Late Johnny Cash was quite remarkable and - for me - opened the door to all his earlier music.

Same here. The American Recordings are the final and fitting monument to a colossal talent and a truly great American.

russtafa

12-23-2011, 05:47 AM

I am listening to Sonny Burgess and the pacers it brings back old memories of Teds at Bogna in the 80S

onmyknees

12-23-2011, 05:53 AM

Pearl Jam = Beatles. Nirvana = Stones. Pearl Jam with Neil Young? Priceless.

Neil Young & Pearl Jam - Keep On Rockin' In The Free World Mtv Music Video Award Ceremony - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDzL_WU3mmE)

~BB~

Agreed. A Legendary Performance. NY at his best.

Since I'm partial to American Blues, I'm obviously partial to the Stones. Some of those sessions with Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy and John Lee Hooker are for the ages.

The Rolling Stones & Buddy Guy - Champagne & Reefer Muddy Waters (2006) HD.avi - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHNl2n8zkb4&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PLE753E1CA3B09A13B)

Rolling Stones & Muddy Waters- I'm a man - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPbGNx4n3zc)

Dino Velvet

12-23-2011, 05:53 AM

Happy you guys in the UK like Johnny Cash. That's some real American Music and I'm proud he represents us. I'm not much for newer Country but I love the Classics starting with Hank Sr.

francisfkudrow

12-23-2011, 08:08 AM

I like the Stones better than early Beatles, but late Beatles better than the Stones. (Someone pointed out to me that I basically like the Beatles when they were on drugs)

robertlouis

12-23-2011, 08:27 AM

Happy you guys in the UK like Johnny Cash. That's some real American Music and I'm proud he represents us. I'm not much for newer Country but I love the Classics starting with Hank Sr.

I'm with you on the earlier stuff, Dino, and don't forget Patsy Cline, but I also go much further back to the Carter Family, Bill Monroe and Jimmie Rodgers. The rhinestone-dipped stuff that has dominated since the 60s leaves me stone cold, but I do like a lot of the new style, especially when it gets right back to the roots, like the peerless Gillian Welch.

Yvonne183

12-24-2011, 12:17 AM

Happy you guys in the UK like Johnny Cash. That's some real American Music and I'm proud he represents us. I'm not much for newer Country but I love the Classics starting with Hank Sr.

Waylon is the best, to me anyway. Guys I hang with look similar to Waylon,, rough guys, love em'. And NO,, these type of guys aren't intolerant red necks, some are very cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKV7vt1kHnk

I don't like the Stones all that much and I despise the Beatles,, The Who were better for those days, maybe even the Animals were better to me.