10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
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 02-20-2011, 07:47 PM   #311 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palatable Vera View Post
There is something I don't understand, though. Critics rack off on the Stones because they became rather trendy after Goats Head Soup, but they seem to forget that the Beatles were rather trendy throughout their entire career. And at least the Stones could make an interesting album in the 70's even after shooting heroine into their eyeballs while the Beatles members' solo projects got progressively bland throughout the years. Like Wings. What the hell happened to that?
In all fairness, if compare we must, we have to compare the collective efforts, or else...

__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 01:55 PM   #312 (permalink)
Quad?
 
Palatable Vera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 125
Default

I don't see the problem with it, the song or the video. >.>

Besides, two saggy old men in tacky clothes that are dancing like wannabe mack-daddies while rubbing butts is totally badass. <.<
Palatable Vera is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 03:33 PM   #313 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
Default

Well, you've gotta be badass to get away with that, I'll give you that.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 10:44 PM   #314 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

the cover is crap, the dancing is crap

but at least it's for a good cause (Live Aid) and the two looked like they were having fun
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2011, 10:28 PM   #315 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
1. Pete Townshend > Keith Richards
Keith Richards will always be cooler than Pete Townshend - that's an unarguable scientific fact. Plus Keith Richards was more knowledgeable on actually playing blues guitar than Pete.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
2. Roger Daltrey > Mick Jagger
3. John Entwistle > Bill Wyman
4. Keith Moon > Charlie Watts
Charlie Watts is a much more talented hands down, he's a much more versatile drummer than Loony Moony ever was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
5. The grand concept albums, one of which was even too grand for The Who themselves, but that they still managed to turn into "Who's next" which eats any selected Stones album for breakfast.
6. "Rock'n Roll circus" that Stones didn't dare to release as The Who blew them away with the "A quick one" performance.
7. The Who's debut consisted almost entirely of self-penned songs, Stones' debut had one original.
Nothing wrong paying homage to Blues and R&B artist that were influences - the Stone paved the way for Blues-Rock of the 60's and 70's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
8. "Live at Leeds". And for the remaining doubters "Live at Isle of Wight".
9. High-end artrock > sloppy blues rock. Ok, that's an exaggeration but The Who were still much more diverse during much less time.
10. Townshend's nose > just about everything
The Rolling Stones is a better band overall than The Who. The Beatles had popularity The Rolling Stones had talent and The Who were loud - loud doesn't mean talented.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
In all fairness, if compare we must, we have to compare the collective efforts, or else...

yes if we have to compare
__________________
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
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 04:36 AM   #316 (permalink)
Live by the Sword
 
Howard the Duck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 9,075
Default

The Who>The Stones>The Beatles
Howard the Duck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 11:30 AM   #317 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Yeah I was bored. Shoot me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
1. Pete Townshend > Keith Richards
Spoon faced opera buff in a boiler suit or a chain smoking pirate.
Hmmm tough choice
Quote:
2. Roger Daltrey > Mick Jagger
Really? C'mon Jagger has more charisma in his little finger than Daltry has in his whole body.

Quote:
3. John Entwistle > Bill Wyman
Bass players, Who cares

Quote:
4. Keith Moon > Charlie Watts
English eccentric vs English gent.
I'll split this one
Quote:
5. The grand concept albums, one of which was even too grand for The Who themselves, but that they still managed to turn into "Who's next" which eats any selected Stones album for breakfast.
Who's Next is crap, It only has something like 3 good songs on it.
The only good 'concept' The Who ever came up with was The Who Sell Out and I don't think that album even comes close to the stuff the Stones were doing around that time.
Quote:
6. "Rock'n Roll circus" that Stones didn't dare to release as The Who blew them away with the "A quick one" performance.
The way they played at that gig is thought to be one of the main reasons they decided to get rid of Brian Jones, so you can't really blame them for not wanting to release it regardless of how anyone else played. The Who were notorious for having sloppy gigs in the late 70s when Moon was totally out of it.
Quote:
7. The Who's debut consisted almost entirely of self-penned songs, Stones' debut had one original.
The concept of an album in the early 60s was just a collection of singles with a few covers to make up the numbers. It wasn't until the mid 60s that an album became an entity in it's own right.

And would this be the same Who debut album that had a Bo Diddley song & 2 James Brown covers on it?

Quote:
8. "Live at Leeds". And for the remaining doubters "Live at Isle of Wight".
Live At Leeds
Is this the same Live At Leeds album with, count them 2 whole songs written by The Who on it.
Give me Get Your YaYa's Out over Live At Leeds anyday.
Oh and...
Altamont >>>> Isle Of Wight

Quote:
9. High-end artrock > sloppy blues rock. Ok, that's an exaggeration but The Who were still much more diverse during much less time.
Were they?
What about Soul, Country, Gospel, Psychedelia, Funk, Disco, even Reggae all done by the Stones while The Who were still around.
Personally I think The Who are pretty one dimensional in that regard they might dress it up as 'high end artrock' or 'rock operas' but it's was still the same basic stuff they were churning out. With The Who you had the mod pop of the mid 60s and the stadium rock of the 70s and not a lot else really.

Quote:
10. Townshend's nose > just about everything
You wouldn't want one though
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 02:06 PM   #318 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Spoon faced opera buff in a boiler suit or a chain smoking pirate.
Hmmm tough choice
Anyone can pull off a chain smoking pirate but to fill a white boiler suit you really have to be Townshend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Really? C'mon Jagger has more charisma in his little finger than Daltry has in his whole body.
Jagger is a buffoon, and charisma won't save him when they unleash their respective vocal cords anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Bass players, Who cares
Who cared, that's why they won this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
English eccentric vs English gent.
I'll split this one
Originality vs. timekeeping, a matter of taste I guess. I'd quote Carl Palmer on this one though: "If you want timekeeping, go buy a metronome".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Who's Next is crap, It only has something like 3 good songs on it.
The only good 'concept' The Who ever came up with was The Who Sell Out and I don't think that album even comes close to the stuff the Stones were doing around that time.
"The Who sell out", already surpassing Stones (and most other bands) in contemporary pop-art, was only the beginning but I'm aware that concept albums in general don't go down well with certain people so I'll let that one pass. The notion of "Who's next" however, is too irrational for me to even be able to process mentally. It's a masterpiece, hands down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
The way they played at that gig is thought to be one of the main reasons they decided to get rid of Brian Jones, so you can't really blame them for not wanting to release it regardless of how anyone else played. The Who were notorious for having sloppy gigs in the late 70s when Moon was totally out of it.
I read somewhere that Stones had been awake for like two days in a row or something, which affected their enthusiasm and thus their performance. All in all, post-Moon Who is not really worth mentioning in this discussion (which goes for post-1980 Stones as well).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
The concept of an album in the early 60s was just a collection of singles with a few covers to make up the numbers. It wasn't until the mid 60s that an album became an entity in it's own right.
And even then the Jagger/Richards originals still weren't up to Who's standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
And would this be the same Who debut album that had a Bo Diddley song & 2 James Brown covers on it?
I said almost entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Live At Leeds
Is this the same Live At Leeds album with, count them 2 whole songs written by The Who on it.
Give me Get Your YaYa's Out over Live At Leeds anyday.
Oh and...
Altamont >>>> Isle Of Wight
Four covers on the reissue, three of which were superior to any other version ("Summertime blues", "Young man blues", "Shakin' all over"), and the rest Who originals, all of which kick any competition off the stage and into the drain. Get yer yaya's outta here!

And Isle of Wight >>>> any other festival in history. I mean: Who, Jethro Tull, ELP, Hendrix, Doors, Procol Harum, Moody Blues, only to mention the cream of the crop.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
Were they?
What about Soul, Country, Gospel, Psychedelia, Funk, Disco, even Reggae all done by the Stones while The Who were still around.
Personally I think The Who are pretty one dimensional in that regard they might dress it up as 'high end artrock' or 'rock operas' but it's was still the same basic stuff they were churning out. With The Who you had the mod pop of the mid 60s and the stadium rock of the 70s and not a lot else really.
Psychedelia, okay they pulled it of decently ("Satanic majesties" is their most underrated work ever). The rest, who cares when it all sounds more or less the same, at least in the hands of Stones. The Who on the other hand evolved constantly all the way through until well past Moon's death (even if the synth pop on the last two albums is not very worthy) and they are probably the only band in history that made stadium rock perfectly adequate and sincere, not least since they more or less originated the otherwise abominable genre. I seriously can't think of any other band, other than Beatles, as diverse as Who.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
You wouldn't want one though
That was probably the most valid counterpoint.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 02:16 PM   #319 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Keith Richards will always be cooler than Pete Townshend - that's an unarguable scientific fact.
No he isn't; no it isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Plus Keith Richards was more knowledgeable on actually playing blues guitar than Pete.
That's as may be, but who cares about blues.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Charlie Watts is a much more talented hands down, he's a much more versatile drummer than Loony Moony ever was.
Talented in that he stuck to what he did best - pure timekeeping - yes, but who needs timekeeping when you can get the rolls from "I can see for miles" or "Bargain"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Nothing wrong paying homage to Blues and R&B artist that were influences - the Stone paved the way for Blues-Rock of the 60's and 70's.
Yeah yeah, blues blah blah blah authencity heritage whateverage. I don't want blues, I want originality!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
The Rolling Stones is a better band overall than The Who. The Beatles had popularity The Rolling Stones had talent and The Who were loud - loud doesn't mean talented.
I don't deny the Stones their talent, but Beatles and Who simply had more vision and progressivity in their respective talent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
yes if we have to compare
That's first of all from the movie, second of all performed by Elton John, third of all a Who original, fourth of all not a solo performance. indeed.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 04:54 PM   #320 (permalink)
love will tear you apart
 
TheCunningStunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Manchester, UK.
Posts: 5,107
Default

The Who are shite. The Stones pwn them and The Beatles right in the face.
__________________
I don't feel and I feel great.

Last FM
TheCunningStunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.