10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (lyrics, pop)

**Urban Hatemonger** · 08-20-2008, 12:49 PM

Welcome to the reason this thread was started.
Beatles fans who seem to have trouble understanding that
*Shock Horror*

Somebody might actually prefer the Stones over them.

Double X · 08-20-2008, 01:25 PM

No. I was angry that he basically said all of the Beatles discography was crap. The Stones are better if you prefer more hard rock.

WeeLittleHobbit · 08-20-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireInCairo

i love pop music
i just dont like it when its twee bordering on nursery rhyme inanity and so dated its not funny
but there is no point getting in this argument

I still don't see how Sgt. Pepper is dated but Abbey Road isn't. Care to explain?

Wifey Boozer · 08-20-2008, 07:44 PM

11. The Beatles bought from George Jung. The Stones bought from Frank Lucas and Jung-post-incarcaration-era.

kida · 10-31-2008, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Are_You_Experienced?

I love how you use all of the Beatles' pre-1966 materal in judging.

Keith and Mick the coolest guitarist and frontman ever? Hahaha, no seriously.

I love them both, but since The Who own them both this is irrelevent.

The beatles pre-1966 stuff was pop aswel fool and had alot of basic love songs...

Scottsman · 10-31-2008, 11:42 AM

Beware Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Urban Hatemonger!

ModernRocker79 · 10-31-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kida

The beatles pre-1966 stuff was pop aswel fool and had alot of basic love songs...

Many people think musically that was their most innovative. Their chord progressions amazed people like Dylan.

This is not a issue to me The Beatles trounced the Stones at everything except copying Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters.

Yeh but do the Stones have 100 great songs? Are the Stones music is widely as interpeted as the Beatles? The answer is no. Please the Stones were a covers band until the Beatles inspired them to write their songs. There is plenty of filler on all their albums.

The Stones were better at doing the Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry thing. The Beatles were better at everything else. The Beatles were better doing the pop thing they revolutionized it from everthing backward instrumentation to guitar feedback. The Beatles were more complex and innovative.

The Beatles did the prog thing better also and they helped influenced it also. The Stones for the most part floundered except for some instances like "She A Rainbow' or "2000 Light Years from Home"..

The Beatles, for instance, used so many scales including for example: diatonic, chromatic, whole tone, pentatonic, hexatonic, heptatonic have five, six, and seven tone scales, respectively.
used in prehistoric music: ditonic or two, tritonic or three, tetratonic or four
used in jazz and modern classical music: octatonic or eight. Also, diminished, augmented, minor and major scales were used by the Beatles.

Maddest_Hatter · 10-31-2008, 04:51 PM

Man I can't choose between them... They are both two of most important bands in history! I also think Keith has been preserved really well. My grand kids will enjoy listening to him! LOL Honestly, without the Beatles, I don't think the Stones would have been as successful. The Beatles opened the world up.

Yes Mick is an amazing frontman! The best, I don't know... But he knows the game and has been successful at it! It's a toss up! I can sit and listen to both of them all day!

lucifer_sam · 10-31-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maddest_Hatter

I also think Keith has been preserved really well.

I thought he was still alive.

~~Son_of_Mr_Greengenes~~ · 10-31-2008, 08:34 PM

Well, Frank Zappa said in an interview that he liked The Rolling Stones more than The Beatles, so I guess they are better.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-20-2008, 01:25 PM
Double X Music Adict Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Eastern Massachusetts Posts: 700	No. I was angry that he basically said all of the Beatles discography was crap. The Stones are better if you prefer more hard rock. __________________

08-20-2008, 07:44 PM
Wifey Boozer Prime Minister of Spain Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Troy side'ah the dirt, NY Posts: 359	11. The Beatles bought from George Jung. The Stones bought from Frank Lucas and Jung-post-incarcaration-era. __________________ Circa Le Vintage (6:15:53 PM): http://www.musicbanter.com/introduct...llery-545.html deadreligionggjb (6:16:53 PM): Lol. deadreligionggjb (6:17:05 PM): You really gotta stop posting shit about our sex life on the internet. If you shut your mouth, woman, I'll buy you a coffee house.

10-31-2008, 11:42 AM
Scottsman Groupie Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 15	Beware Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Urban Hatemonger! __________________ Music Widgets Music widget

10-31-2008, 04:51 PM
Maddest_Hatter Mad in 30 States! Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Eielson AFB, Alaska Posts: 187	Man I can't choose between them... They are both two of most important bands in history! I also think Keith has been preserved really well. My grand kids will enjoy listening to him! LOL Honestly, without the Beatles, I don't think the Stones would have been as successful. The Beatles opened the world up. Yes Mick is an amazing frontman! The best, I don't know... But he knows the game and has been successful at it! It's a toss up! I can sit and listen to both of them all day! __________________ I am the Maddest Hatter of them all!

10-31-2008, 08:34 PM
~~Son_of_Mr_Greengenes~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 48	Well, Frank Zappa said in an interview that he liked The Rolling Stones more than The Beatles, so I guess they are better.