Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-18-2010, 02:43 PM   #1 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 11
Default Rolling Stones or Aerosmith?

People always debate which band is better. Who do you think is the greater rock band?

Personally, I'm always for the Stones. I haven't heard any songs by Aerosmith that represented the culture of the time they were composed like "Satisfaction" and "Mother's Little Helper". While Aerosmith is known for guitarists who are technically good, Richards creativity goes a lot further than Perry's. In fact he proves that great rhythms are more important than showoff guitar leads. Bill Wyman was the first to use a fretless base. Though Watts doesn't smash the drums to bits, he pushes his band forward. I don't think it's much of debate that he's better than Kramer. Plus I find that the Stones have much more variation and that Aerosmith owes a little too much to them, Tyler especially. As for Aerosmith being harder, it's really not a legitimate argument in the first place since the Stones came a decade earlier at a time when they were considered quite loud.

I'm wondering if anyone can make a really good argument to say that Aerosmith is the better band.
Julia Dream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 03:34 PM   #2 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Julia Dream View Post
People always debate which band is better. Who do you think is the greater rock band?

Personally, I'm always for the Stones. I haven't heard any songs by Aerosmith that represented the culture of the time they were composed like "Satisfaction" and "Mother's Little Helper". While Aerosmith is known for guitarists who are technically good, Richards creativity goes a lot further than Perry's. In fact he proves that great rhythms are more important than showoff guitar leads. Bill Wyman was the first to use a fretless base. Though Watts doesn't smash the drums to bits, he pushes his band forward. I don't think it's much of debate that he's better than Kramer. Plus I find that the Stones have much more variation and that Aerosmith owes a little too much to them, Tyler especially. As for Aerosmith being harder, it's really not a legitimate argument in the first place since the Stones came a decade earlier at a time when they were considered quite loud.

I'm wondering if anyone can make a really good argument to say that Aerosmith is the better band.
I would`ve said that the Rolling Stones undoubtedly would be the band that most people on here would choose. Personally though, I far prefer Aerosmith and can listen to them anytime (I am talking soley about their 70's output here) I always loved their far more in your face musical delivery, whereas the Stones admittedly covered far more musical territory that originated out of their early R&B sound, into a very authentic sounding country blues sound that typified their golden era of the late 60`s and early 7o`s. My problem with the Stones is, that I have listened and listened over the years to most of their albums and they just don`t do it for me. I don`t really like Mick Jagger`s voice but love Steve Tyler`s. I think "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks" to be two albums that really define what 70's hard rock is all about and rank right up there with Led Zep`s output.

Aerosmith`s whole image, largely became tainted as they went down the commercial road from the mid 80`s onwards. Also, practically every hair metal group of the 80`s modelled themselves on prime 70`s Aerosmith, none of these groups though had a singer that could match Steven Tyler.

I often read that both Slash and James Hetfield amongst others, were greatly influenced into either picking up an instrument or forming a band after hearing "Rocks" as well.
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 05:30 PM   #3 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,622
Default

Aerosmith was the band back in the 70s with albums like Toys In The Attic, Get Your Wings, & Rocks. Aerosmith was true to their music in those days with songs like, 'Back in the saddle', 'Last Child', and so on. My favorite Aerosmith album has always been 'Get Your Wings', To me Joe Perry never really did that much on guitar, for me anyway, but with Steven Tyler, Perry & Tyler became as one with Aerosmith. Some of the drum beats produced by Aerosmith can stand up with any other bands from that era of Rock,
like Bad Company & Kiss, of course not to the more progressive rock & classical influences used by other bands of that era like Rush,Triumph,&Yes, Aerosmith did just as much in the 70s+ era, just as so did the Rolling stones in the mid to late 60s and on into the 70s and the 80s also, just as Aerosmith did. The Stones are Legends in the history of rock music , I could go on & on but, To Me...both of these bands are different in many ways, and I have the highest of respect for both bands, I could never say which band I like the most because I like them both equally and they are not alike with they're music, I honestly dont think anyone cound honestly say that one is better than the other. Only choose a personal favorite between the Stones or Aerosmith. So in conclusion, I would say that the stones started when things were making a change in the world, with music, social structure, war, and they were around the time of the British invasion. where Aerosmith inspired & influenced other bands & musicians through the decades also, just as the Stones have done also. But its fun to debate and hear other opinions on the subject, hope I didnt rant & rave too awful much,but supper is almost ready and Im in a hurry to finish so I can eat & catch a movie.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 06:20 PM   #4 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Insane Guest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: CA
Posts: 1,320
Default

Um, This is my opinion, no facts behind it, Stones by far.
Insane Guest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2010, 08:56 PM   #5 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xEMGx View Post
Um, This is my opinion, no facts behind it, Stones by far.
I agee, as I stated in different terms before, The Stones should hold a higher position on the ladder than Aerosmith simply only because of the era they started at as a band, but the question I have, Is the level of talent for the Stones 'Higher' than the talent level of Aerosmith? If you want to deal with 'Fact', then find some reviews/polls over the internet on both bands & compare. I dont invesigate the internet very often, I mainly express my personal opinions, open for debate, Ive been around music all my life & Ive played in alot of cover bands through the decades, that has helped me to retain alot of opinions & info about bands & artist through the years, so I tend to apply my personal opinion more so than reviewing the web first, and I will admitt, I do not know everything there is to know about music, another reason why I like to debate.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 12:51 AM   #6 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 5
Default

Rolling Stones is a legend.. Aerosmith is a replica compared to Rolling Stones.
fanturo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 02:29 AM   #7 (permalink)
Model Worker
 
Gavin B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,238
Default

The Rolling Stones. There's really no comparison. By the time Aerosmith came along in 1973, the Stones already had studio 14 albums under their belt, which is the same total number of studio albums than Aerosmith has made in their 37 year career from 1973 until 2010. (We're not counting, live albums, anthologies or greatest hits but albums of original material).

The Stones total output in 47 years is 27 albums compared to 14 for Aerosmith. For quality assessment, the number of AMG five star albums by the Stones is 16 and AMG five star albums by Areosmith is 4.

Steven Tyler is a pale imitation of Mick Jagger and player by player, every one of the Stones band members are are far more creative musicians than the Aerosmith crew. Aerosmith was a come lately band and it was the Rolling Stones who were the widely imitated innovators who changed pop music by bringing southern R&B, the Chuck Berry rock and roll, Chess blues and the bad boy image to modern rock.

Below is a list of 50 Stones songs that are as artful and brilliant as any songs in the past 60 years of rock and roll. When Aerosmith aquires a set of 50 song that's anywhere near as extensive and consistently good as these 50 songs, then maybe they'll have bragging rights as the world's greatest rock and roll band:


Angie
As Tears Go By
Beast Of Burden
Brown Sugar
Dancing With Mr. D
Dandelion
Emotional Rescue
Factory Girl
Get Off of My Cloud
Gimme Shelter
Heart Of Stone
Honky Tonk Women
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
I Wanna Be Your Man
It's Only Rock 'N' Roll
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Lady Jane
Let It Bleed
Let's Spend The Night Together
Little Red Rooster
Love In Vain
Memo From Turner
Mercy Mercy
Midnight Rambler
Miss You
Monkey Man
Mother's Little Helper
Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown
No Expectations
Not Fade Away
Out Of Time
Paint It Black
Play With Fire
Prodigal Son
Ruby Tuesday
Salt Of The Earth
She's A Rainbow
Some Girls
Start Me Up
Stop Breaking Down
Street Fighting Man
Stupid Girl
Sympathy For The Devil
The Last Time
The Spider And The Fly
Time Is On My Side
Tumbling Dice
Under My Thumb
Undercover Of The Night
Waiting On A Friend
We Love You
When The Whip Comes Down
Wild Horses
Yesterday's Papers
You Can't Always Get What You Want
You Got The Silver
Gavin B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 03:57 AM   #8 (permalink)
love will tear you apart
 
TheCunningStunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Manchester, UK.
Posts: 5,100
Default

I don't know how anyone could justify an argument that Aerosmith are better. The Stones by far.
TheCunningStunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 09:26 AM   #9 (permalink)
Horribly Creative
 
Unknown Soldier's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London, The Big Smoke
Posts: 8,220
Default

To Julia Dream,

Told you everyone on here would go with the Stones (Myself excepted of course)
Unknown Soldier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2010, 10:04 AM   #10 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,622
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
To Julia Dream,

Told you everyone on here would go with the Stones (Myself excepted of course)
Yeah....its not really a fair comparison to make, I would think that 'The Rolling Stones vs The Who' would be a more viable choice, but we did get some good statistics concerning the Stones & Aerosmith, Rock On!
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2020 Advameg, Inc.