The Beatles or those other guys the stones.

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:48 PM
link   
So who is better in your opinion and who is technicly better out of the Rolling Stones or The Beatles.

Im gonna say that the Beatles are much better song writers and dont forget that the stones first maneger called them his little three chord wonders.

Let the debate begin!!!




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The Beach Boys win the Beatles-Stones contest hands down.

But the 13th Floor Elevators tip out the Beach Boys for their edginess - and Roky Erickson's path with sanity is more interesting than Brian Wilson's.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The Beach Boys win the Beatles-Stones contest hands down.

But the 13th Floor Elevators tip out the Beach Boys for their edginess - and Roky Erickson's path with sanity is more interesting than Brian Wilson's.


So where did the beach boys come into this?

No dont answer that i want this to STAY ON TOPIC!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 02:54 PM
link   
The Stones of course, so many better songs, while Jagger and Keith dio not have the lyrical talent of Lennon or Mcartney, their performances, their energy, their songs were all better than The Beatles.

The Stones were probally the first real rock band, real as in sex, drugs and rock n' roll. Sure we later found out The Beatles did drugs but Jagger was sleazier than Paul.

I can think of so many great Stones songs, like Wild Horses, Satisfaction, Get off of my Cloud, Sympathy for the Devil, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Brown Sugar, Jumpin Jack Flash while the only good Beatles songs I can think of are Hey Jude, and Helter Skelter.

Satisfaction's riff was named one of the top 10 I believe in many polls, some even first. The Stones while they lacked in some cases the lyrical talent they had the musical talent by far and Mick was a far better front man. He and Richards are one of the best rock duos ever.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:01 PM
link   


Jumping Jack Flash, its a gas
Jumpingjack flash, its gas ect


So these lyrics and are beating the class of the Beatles? How? The Beatles gave up touring which unfortnately left the field wide open for them. The rolling stones are probably the biggest band today even though they're still a bunch of old amatuers.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I said they thing that The Beatles can beat them in is lyrical talent. The Stones's best song with lyrical talent is Sympathy and its one of the best rock songs ever. The Beatles are not my cup of tea, they were too slow, and slightly boring.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by JediMaster
I said they thing that The Beatles can beat them in is lyrical talent. The Stones's best song with lyrical talent is Sympathy and its one of the best rock songs ever. The Beatles are not my cup of tea, they were too slow, and slightly boring.


Ah, yes sympathy for the devil is a great song. But what about the rock(ish) songs the Beatles have done like (i guess this is more bluesy) Get back or most of Let it be for that matter and I am the walrus. Their worst song is all you need is love. Such a song should have been burnt by the writer Lennon. Its pure crap.

Their real early stuff was quite fast from me to you, twist and shout(cover).

Speaking of great rock songs i almost forgot to mention to of the very best Day Tripper and Paperback writer!!!



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   
The hands down winner in a two horse race is The Strolling Bones, the only one of the two ensembles still capable of recording and touring.

Their Satanic Majesties Request craps on Sgt Peppers, and all rock critics say so. LOL.

But The Beatles and The Stones are for those who cannot step outside the box. Third behind The Elevators and The Beach Boys come The Kinks.

It's so very lonely. You're 2000 light years from home.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:38 PM
link   
What, what, what!!!!!! The rolling 3 chord stones!!! Better than the Beatles!!!

Okay:

The Beatles hit number one on albums that havent been released yet.

They have 27 number ones and god knows how many top ten hits.

So powerful that the conspiracy theories started to say Paul was dead.

Powerful enough to be misquoted as saying they're more powerful (or something like that) than Jesus and manege to pull round their career and continue making music.

Hands down the most influencial band of the 20th century.

Maybe the most important band of the 20th century.

So what have the rolling stones done again.

The Beatles start things the rolling stones only followed things.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The Clash, London Calling

"Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust".

The Who behind The Kinks.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   
The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are great bands. I love them both but The Beatles are my favorite band. Paperback Writer is a great song.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
The Clash, London Calling

"Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust".

The Who behind The Kinks.


You want to talk about the clash kinks and the kinky beach coys make your own thread please this is strictly Beatle Stone talk.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Yeah, like I said, Beatles and Stones listeners can't step out of the box.

Stones did better Chuck Berry covers than the Beatles did, and better Lennon & McCartney covers than the Beatles did.

After The Who I think we can throw to The Pretty Things. Stones fans would like them!




posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 04:04 PM
link   
The Clash and the Kinks are some other bands I like. I also like Journey, The Who, Blue Oyster Cult. I can think out of the box.



posted on Dec, 8 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Musically and for invention The Beatles, but Jagger camping it up all over the place is pretty priceless.

Outside the box The Small Faces were cool and very underated, especially in the US. Itchycoo Park is a great song, Jesamine by the casuals is soooo sixties it's far out.



posted on Dec, 12 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Personally, I chose the Fabs.
How many acts do you know can produce a #1 single released @ the same time as, but not appearing on a #1 album?

By the way, it was Mick Jagger who expressed his grudging admiration for The Beatles when he called them "a four-headed monster"

There were many solo songs from Lennon, McCartney & Harrison that were circulating during the time of & soon after their breakup. Suppose they hadn't split, but rather, released an album sometime in 1971? A new Beatles album might have included eome of these songs:

Imagine (Lennon)
Give peace a Chance (Lennon)
Instant karma (Lennon)
Power to the People (Lennon)
Cold Turkey (Lennon)
Another Day (McCartney)
Maybe I'm Amazed (McCartney)
Come & Get it (McCartney)
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey (McCartney)
What is Life (Harrison)
My Sweet Lord (Harrison)
It Don't Come Easy (Harrison - sung by Starr)
All Things Must Pass (Harrison)

And these are only some of their best solo efforts around & soon after the breakup. If the Beatles hadn't split, there probably would have been some collaborative co-written gems.

There were other solo songs from 1970-71:

Lennon's
Isolation
Mother (gut-wrenching cry to his mother)
God (received a lot of attention from the religious set)
Working Class Hero (containing the "F-word" was universally banned)
Jealous Guy
Give Me Some Truth
How Do You Sleep?
And others

Mccartney
Every Night
Wild Life
The Back Seat of My Car
Too Many People
And others

Harrison
If Not For You
Bangladesh
Not Guilty
Isn't It A Pity
And others

And we can go on and on with this for the 1970's.


[edit on 12-12-2004 by evilution]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
this is a tough one.

i like them both but i could listen to any of the beatles songs and always enjoy them where as i could listen to the stones but i would be more selective with their songs as i only like some of them.

i think the beatles where more clean cut pop and commercial with the stones being more rock and bad boys.

Ive got to say though that when they find old unreleased beatles songs hidden in the attic etc and they release them they always fly up the charts.

therefore i would have to say the beatles.

by the way i remember standing across the road from a local nightclub called the plaza with my mates( i was about 5 ) in the early 60s and looking at the large que to get in there. who was playing. thats right, a group called the beatles.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
I think it came down to the producers, and the Beatles win. They were way better produced than the stones. I love em both, but the beatles would have to win. Stones are great in their own way, but not easy to compare.

Kind of like "Whos better Guns n Roses or the Sex pistols?" Both rock, but one was waaay more produced than the other....just MHO



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020
I think it came down to the producers, and the Beatles win. They were way better produced than the stones. I love em both, but the beatles would have to win. Stones are great in their own way, but not easy to compare.

Kind of like "Whos better Guns n Roses or the Sex pistols?" Both rock, but one was waaay more produced than the other....just MHO


The Sex pistols were punk. Pure punk. Loud and in ya face and there is no contest. In reality the sex pistols probably weren't as good song writers, the pistols probably couldn't play as well as the roses (sid vicous :lol
but i don't think it has anything to do with production.

In this case it is to do with the sheer aura that the pistols generate, the aura of rebellion, the aura of anti-government and the feeling of the sex pistols songs wins everytime.

In the case of the stones vs The Beatles the beatles have to win due to their un-ending talent. Take the song across the universe by the beatles.

"Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,
They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe
Pools of sorrow, waves of joy are drifting through my open mind"

Especially the line pools of sorrow, waves of joy. That line is one of the best metaphors (I think that's the right term) of all time and it sums up the genius of The Beatles not The Beatles producer, Sir George Martin. Altho' they couldn't of done it without good production they still had the talent.

IMO

[edit on 12-3-2005 by shorty]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Personally I think they're both pretty much poo, but if I was forced to listen to one or the other I would have to choose the Stones.

The depressive Beatles music makes me





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join