10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (lyrics, pop)

Neapolitan · 07-06-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

I think this, as it was brought up, was more about whether The Rolling Stones were the first western group to use a sitar or not. The wikipedia page I linked comes from that perspective. Anyway I don't care who was the first, the fact is The Rolling Stones weren't and that they just followed what The Beatles did.

Nah, nah, nah, the Stones started as Blues band and had their own influences i.e. American Blues and R&B - how much do you even know about the Stones? And really if anyone followed anyone it was The Beatles that followed The Shadows and lifted the Shad's sound, 'beat music,' wholesale in the beginning.

Yeah ok, the Stones didn't stick to one formula (the Blues) during the 60's and changed their sound along with every other band in the 60s, they weren't following The Beatles anticipating their every move. If anything they inspired each other, and their are some instances where the Stones were innovators. I don't understand why you want to make the Stones out to be lost puppies following The Beatles. I'll admit I like The Beatles but there is this mythologizing of The Beatles that I quite don't understand.

starrynight · 07-06-2011, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Nah, nah, nah, the Stones started as Blues band and had their own influences i.e. American Blues and R&B - how much do you even know about the Stones? And really if anyone followed anyone it was The Beatles that followed The Shadows and lifted the Shad's sound, 'beat music,' wholesale in the beginning.

Yeah ok, the Stones didn't stick to one formula (the Blues) during the 60's and changed their sound along with every other band in the 60s, they weren't following The Beatles anticipating their every move. If anything they inspired each other, and their are some instances where the Stones were innovators. I don't understand why you want to make the Stones out to be lost puppies following The Beatles. I'll admit I like The Beatles but there is this mythologizing of The Beatles that I quite don't understand.

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. 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.

Unknown Soldier · 07-06-2011, 03:30 PM

Its a lame argument to say who did what first, most groups from that era as with other eras borrowed ideas off each other..........it was the sign of good taste and respect for your fellow artist. The Beatles just made a better job of borrowing these ideas from others and producing consistently the better music.

Nothing personal here, just get over it Stones fans that the Beatles were the superior band

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-06-2011, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Nothing personal here, just get over it Stones fans that the Beatles were the superior band

Could you recommend me a good Beatles album with soul, funk ,country & R&B influences then.

Cheers.

Unknown Soldier · 07-06-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Could you recommend me a good Beatles album with soul, funk ,country & R&B influences then.

Cheers.

Try the Clash, they did a far better job than the Rolling Stones of incorporating a whole load of musical influences.

Could you recommend me, a rich sounding psychedelic album by the Stones?

Necromancer · 07-06-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Its a lame argument to say who did what first, most groups from that era as with other eras borrowed ideas of each other..........it was the sign of good taste and respect for your fellow artist. The Beatles just made a better job of borrowing these ideas from others and producing consistently the better music.

Nothing personal here, just get over it Stones fans that the Beatles were the superior band

You know what Soldier? (I still laugh at your avatar!) for such blasphemy like that. Please enlighten me and explain exactly how the Beatles are a superior band? And we have all proved that the Beatles were not the first to use a "Sitar" by far.. Its already very well known that The Rolling Stones were the first ever original band that introduced the "Sitar" as an official instrument to be used by the band members, Keith Richards preferably!

Neapolitan · 07-06-2011, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Its a lame argument to say who did what first,

Well it's part and parcel of "The Beatles created the music universe because they did everything first theory." I guess it's a "first" when The Beatles do it and they are tauted innovators but when another band can be credited for a "first" it's lame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

most groups from that era as with other eras borrowed ideas of each other..........it was the sign of good taste and respect for your fellow artist. The Beatles just made a better job of borrowing these ideas from others and producing consistently the better music.

The issue The Beatles did a better job of borrowing ideas, it's they had the privilege of having ideas they borrowed as accredited as their own.

George Harrison in his whole career as a lead guitarist with The Beatles didn't approach nearly the same amount of notes played on a single Les Paul song.

Unknown Soldier · 07-06-2011, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Well it's part and parcel of "The Beatles created the music universe because they did everything first theory." I guess it's a "first" when The Beatles do it and they are tauted innovators but when another band can be credited for a "first" it's lame.

The issue The Beatles did a better job of borrowing ideas, it's they had the privilege of having ideas they borrowed as accredited as their own.

George Harrison in his whole career as a lead guitarist with The Beatles didn't approach nearly the same amount of notes played on a single Les Paul song.

I`ve never sanctioned the Beatles did it first philosophy anyway, whether they did it first or not is actually quite irrelevant, its how they did it is where the argument lies!

I don`t why you`re comparing George Harrison as a guitar player to Les Paul, Harrison`s genius was in songcraft rather than playing the instrument.

Neapolitan · 07-06-2011, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

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

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.

starrynight · 07-06-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

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.

07-06-2011, 03:30 PM	#3 (permalink)
Unknown Soldier Horribly Creative Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: London, The Big Smoke Posts: 8,265	Its a lame argument to say who did what first, most groups from that era as with other eras borrowed ideas off each other..........it was the sign of good taste and respect for your fellow artist. The Beatles just made a better job of borrowing these ideas from others and producing consistently the better music. Nothing personal here, just get over it Stones fans that the Beatles were the superior band Last edited by Unknown Soldier; 07-06-2011 at 03:42 PM.