10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (lyrics, pop) - 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 (lyrics, pop)
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
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-28-2011, 02:16 PM   #1 (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 04-17-2011, 09:51 PM   #2 (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   #3 (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   #4 (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, 10:48 AM   #5 (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
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Similar Threads


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

© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.