Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 07-05-2011, 09:19 PM   #354 (permalink)
Neapolitan
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Where?

Anyway answering the OP.

So on point one. In what way was Keith Richards a cool guitarist? McCartney was a great bassist and could play lead, and so could Harrison and Lennon. I don't think Keith Richards looks cool either.
Sounds like somebody doesn't have "cool-dar."

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Big Lips is the greatest frontman? Well I suppose he could pout, beyond that I think he was just trying to make up for the lack of the group in other areas. For The Beatles Lennon was humorous and charismatic and McCartney had charm.
Mick was just as charismatic as a show man as any one in R&B or Pop music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
The Beatles did songs about all the topics you say they didn't.
The Beatles most noted songs were about fantasy - trippy in your mind fantasy. The Stones most noted songs were about reality - in your face reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
I'm struggling to see The Beatles faces on the cover of The White Album.
You sound like Ethan Suplee in Mall Rats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
Wings were great in the 70s weren't they? They may have even outsold The Rolling Stones in that period. They certainly had far more memorable and famous songs.
nope, the Stones had better songs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
The Beatles stopped touring as it was too much hassle at that stage as they were so famous and they were able to explore the possibilities in the studio. The Rolling Stones never quite reached that level of worldwide adoration or studio experimentation. The Beatles could play very well live of course.
Really the Stones were ahead of the game comparing some firsts to the Beatles. The Stones were the first band to have a sitar recorded on an album and the first band to write all the tracks on an album.

The Beatles, no doubt deserve all the accolades thrown at them, they were actually quite apt at taking cues from artist and bands.

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
The early Rolling Stones ALSO wore matching clothing, so the point is invalid. The Beatles of course changed their image a great deal through that decade as well.
The Beatles were the guy next-door, and the Stones were the bad boys of Rock. The were the best dressed in Rock (until Jagger donned the white jump suite which almost every frontman did in the 70s) but still Keith is the -est guitar player.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards

Last edited by Neapolitan; 07-05-2011 at 09:30 PM.
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote