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
10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
Register Blogging Today's Posts
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
Page 40 of 60 « First 303839 40 414250 Last »
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-06-2011, 04:57 PM   #391 (permalink)
Buzz Killjoy
 
BastardofYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
Default
hey, save that for unpopular music opinions.
__________________
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
Old 07-06-2011, 06:20 PM   #392 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Captain Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: in a boat with your girlfriend
Posts: 274
Default
let it bleed was a ripoff of beggars banquet
Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 06:29 PM   #393 (permalink)
Groupie
 
Don Draper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3
Default
The Rolling Stones were cooler than The Beatles, but The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones in terms of songcraft, that's how I see it

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
let it bleed was a ripoff of beggars banquet
Let it Bleed is so much better than Beggar's Banquet, which is a really damn fine album. Let it Bleed is in my top five albums of the 1960s with The Velvet Underground and Nico, Highway 61 Revisited, Oddessey and Oracle and Revolver
Last edited by Don Draper; 07-06-2011 at 06:35 PM.
Don Draper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 07:34 PM   #394 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
I'm not saying The Beatles weren't influenced by other people (Buddy Holly and others) nor that The Rolling Stones always followed them, but where the sitar is concerned it looks very likely that they did follow them.
Who are the they's and them's?

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
The Rolling Stones did some good music, but most people out there would not think they rivalled The Beatles. The Beach Boys were a closer rival, so were The Kinks.
It's like a Catch-22 most artist/bands are popular because of their popularity, because they are more easily accessible through mass media not because of creativity. Why should anyone worry about what most people think out there? AN opinion isn't going to make something sound better or worse.

The Beatles and the Stones paths crossed several times throughout their history and they were "close" rivals both from perspective knowing each other and creative output.
__________________
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 07-06-2011, 09:41 PM   #395 (permalink)
Buzz Killjoy
 
BastardofYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Ron View Post
let it bleed was a ripoff of beggars banquet
yeah, don't you hate when bands rip themselves off.
__________________
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
Old 07-06-2011, 09:52 PM   #396 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,538
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Monkey View Post
The Beatles never had 33 active years without releasing any good material.
What?
someonecompletelyrandom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 10:13 PM   #397 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
Who are the they's and them's?



It's like a Catch-22 most artist/bands are popular because of their popularity, because they are more easily accessible through mass media not because of creativity. Why should anyone worry about what most people think out there? AN opinion isn't going to make something sound better or worse.

The Beatles and the Stones paths crossed several times throughout their history and they were "close" rivals both from perspective knowing each other and creative output.
they - Rolling Stones them - Beatles

At the time The Rolling Stones were considered a main rival as they were promoted as that. They represented the rock alternative, and The Beatles the main pop group. Over time though perspective changes and people can get a wider view of the music. The Kinks in the late 60s were very underrated, they still are. The Beach Boys had some acclaim back then, but they have more now. Others like The Rolling Stones, Dylan and Elvis probably had more acclaim back then than they do now. With the perspective of time we can have a fuller view of music from a period.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2011, 11:46 PM   #398 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post

At the time The Rolling Stones were considered a main rival as they were promoted as that. They represented the rock alternative, and The Beatles the main pop group. Over time though perspective changes and people can get a wider view of the music. The Kinks in the late 60s were very underrated, they still are. The Beach Boys had some acclaim back then, but they have more now. Others like The Rolling Stones, Dylan and Elvis probably had more acclaim back then than they do now. With the perspective of time we can have a fuller view of music from a period.
The Beatles and The Stones were acquaintances. The Stones were promoted as the bad boys of Rock, the rivalry comes mainly from the fans, and the question been raging like the Pepsi vs Coke kind of rage for 40-something years now.

I doubt Elvis lost any (maybe as time goes on) but there are just as many Elvis impersonators than any other entertainment icon I can think of. Really you are getting into territory I have no idea about: how popular bands are seen then and now. Most bands of that era are forgotten like DC5, The Hollies, Jerry and the Pacemakers, The Searchers, The Tremeloes, The Yardbirds etc etc. And for some reason The Beatles and The Who fans act like their band are the only ones that every existed - which is pretty annoying. Depending who you talk to the UK only had one band in the 60's The Beatles or The Who. The Jam out-Whoed The Who in the 70's anyway. A band like Joy Division probably have more fans now than then, well at least as far as bands trying to imitate their sound.
__________________
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
Last edited by Neapolitan; 07-06-2011 at 11:52 PM.
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2011, 12:58 AM   #399 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Captain Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: in a boat with your girlfriend
Posts: 274
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
The Rolling Stones were cooler than The Beatles, but The Beatles were better than The Rolling Stones in terms of songcraft, that's how I see it



Let it Bleed is so much better than Beggar's Banquet, which is a really damn fine album. Let it Bleed is in my top five albums of the 1960s with The Velvet Underground and Nico, Highway 61 Revisited, Oddessey and Oracle and Revolver
let it bleed is much weaker in every way than beggars
Captain Ron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-2011, 01:50 AM   #400 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan View Post
I doubt Elvis lost any (maybe as time goes on) but there are just as many Elvis impersonators than any other entertainment icon I can think of.
Perhaps, but far fewer are probably interested in the music.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Page 40 of 60 « First 303839 40 414250 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Similar Threads


Terms & Privacy - Contact Us - Music Banter - Archive - Top

© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.