Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser
Without the beatles there wouldn't be the rolling stones, who ever said they like the stones better think of that fact that the beatles are flat out better hands down.
|
No doubts where you stand on this issue, I do like the Beatles better, I might be just a little biased though,,,lol,,,I actually watched their North American debut on the Ed Sullivan show in black and white,,,the girls screaming constantly throughout the set I found extremely annoying, but the moment is permanently etched in my consciousness now. I like the Stones,,,but the Beatles reached me on a different level, plus not only the music they made, but they helped advance the quality of the recording industry as a whole, not just great songs, but great sounding recordings too.(Obviously I'm referring to their later albums when they had the money to get the very best technology and play around with it.) I had an argument with a good friend(Stones fanatic..), about this years ago,,,I would have way more respect had the Stones tried harder in the studio on the production side of their music, some of which was excellent, but the shoddy "let's get drunk and play around in the studio when we cut this album attitude", always hurt the overall sound of most of their albums. I think that's one of the reasons most people enjoy the Stones live,,,they put on a great show and the sound itself surpasses many of their studio recordings.(I'm an in no way slighting them for their songwriting skills, just wishing they cared more about the finished product, you can improve the production/engineering quality without sacrificing the natural raw edge of their sound.)