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 02-28-2011, 05:04 PM   #321 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: -_-_-_-_~__~-~_-`_`-~_-`-~-~
Posts: 1,276
Default

I far too sophisticated to listen to rock music, I listen to art.

Discuss.
clutnuckle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2011, 05:28 PM   #322 (permalink)
Way Out There
 
almauro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 850
Default

The Who v The Stones. Look at it as a boxing match. The Who may get the early knockdown, but the Stones will always win on points.
__________________
rock n music blog

Last edited by almauro; 02-28-2011 at 06:56 PM.
almauro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 06:05 AM   #323 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Ben Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Rudheath
Posts: 393
Default

Rolling Stones are better, The Beatles are the most overrated band of all time.
Ben Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2011, 09:51 PM   #324 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
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"?
On the contrary with "pure timekeeping" Charlie Watts could take it or leave, it didn't matter to him one way or the other and that what makes him infinitely better than Keith Moon! Just listen to these track and prepare to have your mind blown with Charlie Watts unorthodox time keeping!





__________________
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 04-22-2011, 08:33 AM   #325 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
On the contrary with "pure timekeeping" Charlie Watts could take it or leave, it didn't matter to him one way or the other and that what makes him infinitely better than Keith Moon! Just listen to these track and prepare to have your mind blown with Charlie Watts unorthodox time keeping!





He's good at what he did, I'm not arguing about that. It's just that what he did is dull and unimaginative.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 08:45 AM   #326 (permalink)
The Music Guru.
 
Burning Down's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Beyond the Wall
Posts: 4,858
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dotoar View Post
He's good at what he did, I'm not arguing about that. It's just that what he did is dull and unimaginative.
I think Charlie Watts is an underrated drummer. He's all business, and he doesn't fool around on the kit. He and Bill Wyman made up one of the best rhythm sections in rock, in my opinion. What Charlie lacked in imagination, Bill made up for it with great basslines.
Burning Down is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 08:51 AM   #327 (permalink)
s_k
Music Addict
 
s_k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 2,206
Default

So I just read those 10 'facts' in the first posting.
And I cannot help but think: Yes, but still I think in the mid/late 60's the beatles were far more ingenious than the stones have ever been... I'm sorry.
There's just one stones song I think is utterly brilliant. There's some nice songs, but only one that's really brilliant. And that's this one:

1981.
Props for making a song that good in the 80's, but still...
I just prefer the beatles for their music writing abilities and I don't really care for their appeal or the length of their career.
__________________
Click here to see my collection
s_k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2011, 10:48 AM   #328 (permalink)
Supernatural anaesthetist
 
Dotoar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Örebro, Sweden
Posts: 436
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burning Down View Post
I think Charlie Watts is an underrated drummer. He's all business, and he doesn't fool around on the kit. He and Bill Wyman made up one of the best rhythm sections in rock, in my opinion. What Charlie lacked in imagination, Bill made up for it with great basslines.
I don't think he's underrated at all; as soon as he's mentioned in any drummer discussion, hordes of Stones apologists gather round to claim him the master of the game by pointing out the obvious - that he's simply holding down the rythm. But you could say the same thing about Phil Rudd as well, and I don't see him revered for being a master timekeeper.
__________________
- More is more -
Dotoar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2011, 03:23 PM   #329 (permalink)
Addict
 
Colby4780's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 89
Default

I would have to say Stones, the Beatles are not gritty enough for me, Stones really get down to business with their lyrics.
__________________
Colby4780 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-02-2011, 05:54 PM   #330 (permalink)
Buzz Killjoy
 
BastardofYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
Default

I think The Beatles are the better of the two personally. In many ways, The Stones just followed in The Beatles footprint. "Their Satanic Majesties Request" for example was no more than their attempt at recreating "Sgt.Pepper...." and much of their output was like that.

While I like the Stones, I think The Beatles will always be the better group. The Stones to me were always more image over art, while The Beatles were really into all aspects.

"Under My Thumb" is one of my favorite songs, but when looking at The Stones as a whole, I think they have more failure than success to their name.

I appreciate both bands in their own right, but to say they were better than The Beatles is a bold statement.

But different strokes I suppose.
__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.
BastardofYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.