EvilChuck

At what? You're going to have to be more specific...

__________________
Last.FM

Necromancer

Their known as the "Greatest Rock And Roll Band In The World".



That is an unpopular opinion Captain, and I will bet there is someone, somewhere, who agrees.

TockTockTock

Better at what?

Comments like these end up ruining decent musical discussions... The whole "this musician is better than that musician" gets old. Please don't let your bias get in the way of making a coherent "argument."


That's all well and good, but how does it make them more artistic/mature in their approach to making music?

Necromancer

^Your the only person who said all that^, I only suggested that they are my personal band of choice and preference, in style and sound.

TockTockTock

No, BastardofYoung was the one who originally brought up the artistic credibility of The Beatles, but I understand what you're getting at. I'm in no position (nor is anyone else) to criticize you on your personal preference between the two.

Howard the Duck

ah a fellow Revolution #9 connoseuier

and i thought i was the only one

__________________


Malaise is THE dominant human predilection.

music_phantom13

Since I saw people talking about jazz earlier, I prefer Red Garland to any other jazz pianist, though Bill Evans is a very, very close second. Not saying Monk, Corea, Duke Ellington or any of them aren't amazing piano players, I just prefer Red's playing.

starrynight

The Rolling Stones had simpler music of less variety, while The Beatles were more sophisticated and could reach greater depths while also giving people some simple direct music sometimes as well.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

Unknown Soldier

I`m glad the Beatles didn`t have the heavy blues/R&B influence to their music, because about 60% of all groups at this time were churning out this sound and just because they added some funk and soul influences hardly put the Stones in the same level of excellence as the Beatles. The trick of the Stones was very simple really and that was to take traditional southern american sounds and re-do them in their own style (whilst that makes them original it doesn`t necessarily make them brilliant but the trick worked) There are a number of other groups around at that time, whose sound was based on blues and R&B that I`d much sooner listen to anyway, where the Stones excelled though, was with their bad boy image combined with Mick Jagger`s cocky approach which contrasted with the more sullen aloofness of Keith Richards.

Musically though they lag behind the Beatles, they didn`t have the pop and melodic sensiblities of McCartney and the brilliance and experimentalism of Lennon or the soul and vocal beauty of Harrison and for these reasons the Beatles excelled. Also the Beatles progressed through a myriad of musical styles that was simply breathtaking and they did this without ever being a progressive band as such, they more or less just borrowed musical ideas off their contemporaries such as Dylan, Shankar, Beach Boys and the Byrds and then just created their own magical cocktail. In contrast to this, the Stones had their Brian Jones cover period and their period just after, which is all decent enough, but when they tried to do something really different as in psychedelia they failed miserably, but at least they had the sense to then turn back to what they knew how to do. Then came the so called golden era of the Stones the late 60`s and early 70`s, where they put out a bunch of very overrated albums ( I have these albums and after about 100 combined listens I`m still unimpressed) By the latter part of the 70`s though, the group and especially Mick Jagger had actually become a laughable parody of themselves and should have actually called it a day then.

I think the Beatles v the Rolling Stones is a good pairing, quite simply because they are the two most revered British groups ever, but I`d say the Who were far better to compare with the Stones though.

The Who and even the Pretty Things are one of the best comparisons to make with the Stones. When it comes to the Beatles the best comparisons are really the Byrds and the Beach Boys.

At the end of the day though, these were two very different bands that moved millions of people and are always well worth talking about. It`d be interesting from the Americans on here, to see who they think were the two most revered American bands of all time to make that same comparison. I certainly know which bands or artists I`d pick, but it`d be great to see an American perspective on this.

Urban Hat€monger ?

Oh no someone is giving the Stones an ounce of credit for something.

Quick, lets say the Beatles invented everything from IDM to symphonic black metal to restore the balance in the world.

__________________