Home› Other Music

Beatles and Rolling Stones

patrickredeyespatrickredeyes Posts: 8,834
edited July 2009 in Other Music
I'm rediscovering both bands and loving it. :)
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • release30release30 Posts: 2,051
    I listen to both constantly on vinyl daily......
    Conversations getting dull
    There's a constant ringing in my ears
    Sense of humor's void and numb
    And I'm bored to tears.......
  • dcfaithfuldcfaithful Posts: 13,076
    Stones are better IMO. But they still both made/make (Stones case) great music.

    The Stones are just more rock n' roll, and that's what I love. We need the Rolling Stones tongue as an emoticon :D
    7/2/06 - Denver, CO
    6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
    8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
    9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
    9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
    9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
  • surfanddestroysurfanddestroy Posts: 2,786
    Love the Stones, not to keen on the Beatles though.
    Astoria 20/04/06, Leeds 25/08/06, Prague 22/09/06, Wembley 18/06/07,
    Dusseldorf 21/06/07, Manchester 17/08/09, London 18/08/09, LA 06/10/09, LA 07/10/09.

    Ain't gonna be any middle anymore.
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,568
    The Beatles are the greatest band in the history of the world. 'Nuff said.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • marcosmarcos Posts: 2,112
    That is constanly a debate for me as well, but I own more Beatles records than Stones. The Stones defintely have a harder bad ass vibe, but the Beatles also showed that were tough on The White Album (certain songs). And maybe The Beatles did the pop thing a a little better, but in alot of ways, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!, is my favorite Stones record. And as all Pearl Jam fans know, alot can be said about a band who sometimes sounds better live. Another example would be Who Live at Leeds.
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 11,430
    Both kickass, but the Beatles are the superior musicians and song writers. They're untouchable.

    Down and dirty rock doesn't get better than Sticky Fingers though.
  • Piper At The GatesPiper At The Gates Posts: 460
    If you want to hear the most kick-ass Stones recording there is, go to wolfgangsvault.com and check out the 1973 show from Brussels. The version of Midnight Rambler will absolutely blow you away. Mick Taylor was so great with them.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    marcos wrote:
    That is constanly a debate for me as well, but I own more Beatles records than Stones. The Stones defintely have a harder bad ass vibe, but the Beatles also showed that were tough on The White Album (certain songs). And maybe The Beatles did the pop thing a a little better, but in alot of ways, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out!, is my favorite Stones record. And as all Pearl Jam fans know, alot can be said about a band who sometimes sounds better live. Another example would be Who Live at Leeds.

    Same for me. The Beatles made better albums. While the Stones' best moments rival the Beatles, they're spread over so many albums that I feel like a great hits comp is all I need of the Stones, whereas every album the Beatles made after Rubber Soul is essential for me.
  • ByrnzieByrnzie Posts: 21,037
    Apart from the White Album, I never liked the Beatles.

    I'd rather listen to The Stones anyday.
  • Ledbetterman10Ledbetterman10 Posts: 16,941
    I'm not much into The Stones. I've always cried foul at people who hold them in as high regard as The Beatles or Led Zeppelin. To me, they're a good rock band....but that's it.
    2000: Camden 1, 2003: Philly, State College, Camden 1, MSG 2, Hershey, 2004: Reading, 2005: Philly, 2006: Camden 1, 2, East Rutherford 1, 2007: Lollapalooza, 2008: Camden 1, Washington D.C., MSG 1, 2, 2009: Philly 1, 2, 3, 4, 2010: Bristol, MSG 2, 2011: PJ20 1, 2, 2012: Made In America, 2013: Brooklyn 2, Philly 2, 2014: Denver, 2015: Global Citizen Festival, 2016: Philly 2, Fenway 1, 2018: Fenway 1, 2, 2021: Sea. Hear. Now. 2022: Camden, 2024: Philly 2

    Pearl Jam bootlegs:
    http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
  • FinsburyParkCarrotsFinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    In his 1970 interview with Jann Wenner, Lennon, though paranoid as hell and full of spite, did make an interesting point about the sixties albums by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. He said, every album The Beatles did, The Stones tried to copy six months later. "Their Satanic Majesties is Pepper", he said, or words to that effect. While Lennon was simplifying things, he was incisive. The Stones' manager Andrew Loog Oldham did stick them in suits, and they did consciously move away from their blues roots a bit, with numbers such as It's All Over Now. They had become famous with a Lennon-McCartney number, I Wanna Be Your Man (a bit of a throwaway song The Beatles had Ringo sing), and Aftermath was probably only possible because of Rubber Soul, in terms of what record companies would let bands do, and how they could conceive being a bit experimental with pop. Also the Pepper/Satanic Majesties comparisons are justified, if only between the album covers rather than the music.


    However, Beggars' Banquet is where The Rolling Stones broke out. Brian Jones was fit for fuck all by 1968, but Keef had taught himself slide: they returned to their blues origins with a vengeance, and sounded vital. That whole 1968-1972 Stones period (before and after Brian's death, Mick Taylor joining, Altamont and Cocksucker Blues) put them ten classes above the Zeps, Floyds and Whos of the time. That all changed when the smack and the coke started to catch up on Keef and high-living in tax havens made Jagger lazy, but for a few years they really earned their status as among the triumvirate of first-wave rock innovators (the third being Dylan).
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    The Beatles may have been the greatest band, but the Stones are probably the greatest rock band. As in the best rock band for everyone. How many women consider themselves Led Zeppelin fans? The Stones had a way of making hard rock appealing to everyone. Mick had that swagger that came off as both macho and effeminate in a way I don't think anyone else has been able to duplicate. Keith's guitar work was top notch but not too heavy. He could work that slide like nobody's business. And Charlie Watt was the working man's drummer that looked like a dandy. What's not to love about a guy that looks like he just stepped out of a business meeting and learned he could keep a mean beat? And he always seemed to be the one having the most fun.
  • gabersgabers Posts: 2,787
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    In his 1970 interview with Jann Wenner, Lennon, though paranoid as hell and full of spite, did make an interesting point about the sixties albums by The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. He said, every album The Beatles did, The Stones tried to copy six months later. "Their Satanic Majesties is Pepper", he said, or words to that effect. While Lennon was simplifying things, he was incisive. The Stones' manager Andrew Loog Oldham did stick them in suits, and they did consciously move away from their blues roots a bit, with numbers such as It's All Over Now. They had become famous with a Lennon-McCartney number, I Wanna Be Your Man (a bit of a throwaway song The Beatles had Ringo sing), and Aftermath was probably only possible because of Rubber Soul, in terms of what record companies would let bands do, and how they could conceive being a bit experimental with pop. Also the Pepper/Satanic Majesties comparisons are justified, if only between the album covers rather than the music.


    However, Beggars' Banquet is where The Rolling Stones broke out. Brian Jones was fit for fuck all by 1968, but Keef had taught himself slide: they returned to their blues origins with a vengeance, and sounded vital. That whole 1968-1972 Stones period (before and after Brian's death, Mick Taylor joining, Altamont and Cocksucker Blues) put them ten classes above the Zeps, Floyds and Whos of the time. That all changed when the smack and the coke started to catch up on Keef and high-living in tax havens made Jagger lazy, but for a few years they really earned their status as among the triumvirate of first-wave rock innovators (the third being Dylan).

    I have to say man, you should really think about trying to write for a music rag. Your commentary is always top notch. I feel like I'm reading a David Fricke review when I read your stuff.
  • blondieblue227blondieblue227 Va, USA Posts: 4,509
    kinda OT. sorry

    but i just got into Faces. ron wood, rod stewart. i love it!

    there's nothing on earth like some good tunes. .......beatles, stones, etc.
    *~Pearl Jam will be blasted from speakers until morale improves~*

  • dcfaithfuldcfaithful Posts: 13,076
    cincybearcat wrote:
    The Beatles are the greatest band in the history of the world. 'Nuff said.

    Ooohh, those be debatin' words! ;)
    7/2/06 - Denver, CO
    6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
    8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
    9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
    9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
    9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,568
    dcfaithful wrote:
    cincybearcat wrote:
    The Beatles are the greatest band in the history of the world. 'Nuff said.

    Ooohh, those be debatin' words! ;)


    Not really.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • dcfaithfuldcfaithful Posts: 13,076
    cincybearcat wrote:
    dcfaithful wrote:
    cincybearcat wrote:
    The Beatles are the greatest band in the history of the world. 'Nuff said.

    Ooohh, those be debatin' words! ;)


    Not really.

    Well, considering that it might be hard to find any factual evidence that prooves they are in fact the GREATEST band in the world, your previous comment for now, is only an opinion which could be easily debated. I think it would be a safe bet to say that not everyone would agree about the Beatles greatness.

    But regardless, i was only joking. :mrgreen:
    7/2/06 - Denver, CO
    6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
    8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
    9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
    9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
    9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
  • Evacuation RulesEvacuation Rules Posts: 2,162
    soulsinging wrote:
    The Beatles made better albums. While the Stones' best moments rival the Beatles, they're spread over so many albums that I feel like a great hits comp is all I need of the Stones, whereas every album the Beatles made after Rubber Soul is essential for me.

    The Beatles golden period was 1965-1969. The Stones golden period was 1968-1972. They each had a 5 year period where they made essential albums with no filler. I suggest listening to Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers and then saying that the Stones didn't make good albums.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Evacuation Rules wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    The Beatles made better albums. While the Stones' best moments rival the Beatles, they're spread over so many albums that I feel like a great hits comp is all I need of the Stones, whereas every album the Beatles made after Rubber Soul is essential for me.

    The Beatles golden period was 1965-1969. The Stones golden period was 1968-1972. They each had a 5 year period where they made essential albums with no filler. I suggest listening to Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers and then saying that the Stones didn't make good albums.

    That's 3 albums though, whereas the Beatles in their period made 7. It doesn't compare. And I don't think any of those albums is as good as Abbey Road, Ruber Soul or Revolver.
  • CosmoCosmo Posts: 12,225
    My Top 5 The Beatles Albums:
    The Beatles (White Album)
    Abbey Road
    Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
    Revolver
    Rubber Soul
    ...
    Top 5 Stones:
    Exile On Main street
    Let It Bleed
    Sticky Fingers
    Beggars Banquet
    Some Girls
    ...
    Since I consider The Beatles (White Album), Abbey Road and Sgt. Pepper as true masterpieces... I have to go with The Beatles.
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 16,568
    dcfaithful wrote:
    Well, considering that it might be hard to find any factual evidence that prooves they are in fact the GREATEST band in the world, your previous comment for now, is only an opinion which could be easily debated. I think it would be a safe bet to say that not everyone would agree about the Beatles greatness.

    But regardless, i was only joking. :mrgreen:


    As was I. ;)
    hippiemom = goodness
  • dcfaithfuldcfaithful Posts: 13,076
    cincybearcat wrote:
    dcfaithful wrote:
    Well, considering that it might be hard to find any factual evidence that prooves they are in fact the GREATEST band in the world, your previous comment for now, is only an opinion which could be easily debated. I think it would be a safe bet to say that not everyone would agree about the Beatles greatness.

    But regardless, i was only joking. :mrgreen:


    As was I. ;)

    Damn the internet. :lol:
    7/2/06 - Denver, CO
    6/12/08 - Tampa, FL
    8/23/09 - Chicago, IL
    9/28/09 - Salt Lake City, UT (11 years too long!!!)
    9/03/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 1
    9/04/11 - East Troy, WI - PJ20 - Night 2
  • Fender_ManFender_Man Posts: 408
    DewieCox wrote:
    Both kickass, but the Beatles are the superior musicians and song writers. They're untouchable.

    Down and dirty rock doesn't get better than Sticky Fingers though.

    Not going to argue with you on the song writing, but I would question whether the Beatles were superior musicians?

    Charlie Vs Ringo , not really a contest IMO
    McCartney Vs Wyman, a dead heat? I could be persuaded either way.
    Harrison / Lennon Vs Keef, Ron Wood, Mick Taylor, Brian Jones, a Stoneslide victory !!
    Vocally the Beatles were stronger, just by the fact that they all sung (Ringo sort of).
  • DewieCoxDewieCox Posts: 11,430
    Fender_Man wrote:
    DewieCox wrote:
    Both kickass, but the Beatles are the superior musicians and song writers. They're untouchable.

    Down and dirty rock doesn't get better than Sticky Fingers though.

    Not going to argue with you on the song writing, but I would question whether the Beatles were superior musicians?

    Charlie Vs Ringo , not really a contest IMO
    McCartney Vs Wyman, a dead heat? I could be persuaded either way.
    Harrison / Lennon Vs Keef, Ron Wood, Mick Taylor, Brian Jones, a Stoneslide victory !!
    Vocally the Beatles were stronger, just by the fact that they all sung (Ringo sort of).

    Maybe, but Ringo catches way too much flack and it's not like Charlie Watts is a technical whiz

    Never once has a Stones' bassline really just jumped out at me

    Pretty wrong-Keef is a legendary guitarist no doubt, but the stuff he plays is about as easy on the fingers as it gets. Judging both technical proficiency and creativity, the Beatles piss all over the Stones.

    As a whole, the Beatles used 10x the melodic ideas as the Stones and that figures into everything else to me.
  • Evacuation RulesEvacuation Rules Posts: 2,162
    soulsinging wrote:
    That's 3 albums though, whereas the Beatles in their period made 7.

    And "Exile On Main St." and "Goats Head Soup" and "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out". I didn't name all of them.
  • soulsingingsoulsinging Posts: 13,202
    Evacuation Rules wrote:
    soulsinging wrote:
    That's 3 albums though, whereas the Beatles in their period made 7.

    And "Exile On Main St." and "Goats Head Soup" and "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out". I didn't name all of them.

    Ya-Ya's is a live album, not new material. So at best that's 5 albums of new material in a comparable period, and I think you'd have a hard time convincing Goat's Head is in the same company as even the other Stones albums you mentioned, let alone the Beatles albums from that period. And I still think that, as albums, the Beatles albums are superior. Don't get me wrong, I like the Stones well enough, but I don't think there's really a comparison.
Sign In or Register to comment.