10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Burning Down · 05-02-2011, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BastardofYoung

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.

Really? I know that having a career as long as the Stones have had means that there will be some low points along the way, but I don't think their successes are outweighed by failure. Certainly not in terms of albums.

Neapolitan · 05-02-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BastardofYoung

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.

Well, Sgt Pepper was The Beatles attempt to do a 12X5 and Pet Sounds. So in all fairness if you going to say that you have to say "... Majesties Request for example was no more than their attempt at recreating Sgt.Pepper... which was no more than their attempt at recreating 12X5, & Pet Sounds."

And the Stones weren't the only one who riffed on the Sgt Pepper album, so did Frank Zappa with "Were Only In It For The Money."

Dotoar · 05-03-2011, 05:37 AM

Why can't this thread die? Oh well, if live it must:

10 reasons why The Zombies are better that Rolling Stones:

1. The organ, damnit!
2. They did "She's not there" in 1964, when Stones still had to rely on Lennon/McCartney to provide them with second-rate material.
3. They only lasted long enough to release one truly timeless classic, "Odessey & oracle", but it's still better than any selected Stones album.
4. They did their harmony homework way better.
5. They realised quite early that the world didn't need any more dull R&B workouts.
6. Chris White and Paul Atkinson both had glasses, so they were hipster 35 years before it became trendy.
7. And they did spawn Argent's own band, which adds two great acts to his CV.
8. No risk for overhype.
9. And no risk for overproductivity.
10. And no risk of getting killed by Hells Angels.

captaincaptain · 05-03-2011, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Why can't this thread die? Oh well, if live it must:

10 reasons why The Zombies are better that Rolling Stones:

1. The organ, damnit!
2. They did "She's not there" in 1964, when Stones still had to rely on Lennon/McCartney to provide them with second-rate material.
3. They only lasted long enough to release one truly timeless classic, "Odessey & oracle", but it's still better than any selected Stones album.
4. They did their harmony homework way better.
5. They realised quite early that the world didn't need any more dull R&B workouts.
6. Chris White and Paul Atkinson both had glasses, so they were hipster 35 years before it became trendy.
7. And they did spawn Argent's own band, which adds two great acts to his CV.
8. No risk for overhype.
9. And no risk for overproductivity.
10. And no risk of getting killed by Hells Angels.

Gotta admit, Odessey & Oracle is pretty awesome.

TheBig3 · 05-05-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

8. No risk for overhype.

You must be new here.

almauro · 05-05-2011, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by s_k

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.

So you think a Stones out-take is the best thing they ever did?...chuckle chuckle.

adryn franklyn · 06-14-2011, 06:11 PM

Known as “The World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band,” The Rolling Stones have been the bad boys of Rock ‘n’ Roll for five decade. and it remained no.1 in the u.k chart for a good period of time.

**Scarlett O'Hara** · 06-14-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

Really? I know that having a career as long as the Stones have had means that there will be some low points along the way, but I don't think their successes are outweighed by failure. Certainly not in terms of albums.

Exactly. You don't gross the most money on a tour of all time for being unsuccessful.

Beatles to me lack in certain elements, by means of music development. For example The Rolling Stones really incorporated a number of genres to make their music have such a signature style that continued to change. Using blues rock and so on.

mewlists · 06-15-2011, 04:10 AM

Sympathy for the Devil..that's why!

SGR · 06-15-2011, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mewlists

Sympathy for the Devil..that's why!

But the Beatles have A Day In The Life...

05-03-2011, 05:37 AM	#333 (permalink)
Dotoar Supernatural anaesthetist Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Örebro, Sweden Posts: 436	Why can't this thread die? Oh well, if live it must: 10 reasons why The Zombies are better that Rolling Stones: 1. The organ, damnit! 2. They did "She's not there" in 1964, when Stones still had to rely on Lennon/McCartney to provide them with second-rate material. 3. They only lasted long enough to release one truly timeless classic, "Odessey & oracle", but it's still better than any selected Stones album. 4. They did their harmony homework way better. 5. They realised quite early that the world didn't need any more dull R&B workouts. 6. Chris White and Paul Atkinson both had glasses, so they were hipster 35 years before it became trendy. 7. And they did spawn Argent's own band, which adds two great acts to his CV. 8. No risk for overhype. 9. And no risk for overproductivity. 10. And no risk of getting killed by Hells Angels. __________________ - More is more -

06-14-2011, 06:11 PM	#337 (permalink)
adryn franklyn Groupie Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 18	Known as “The World’s Greatest Rock and Roll Band,” The Rolling Stones have been the bad boys of Rock ‘n’ Roll for five decade. and it remained no.1 in the u.k chart for a good period of time.

06-15-2011, 04:10 AM	#339 (permalink)
mewlists Groupie Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 17	Sympathy for the Devil..that's why!