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

Gavin B. · 12-04-2013, 08:46 PM

Both bands were great. The Rolling Stones stood pretty close to the blues and rhythm and blues music they played from the beginning. The Stones never really explored the psychedelic realm except for a brief moment on Satanic Majesties.

Over 7 or 8 years, the Beatles evolved into a completely different band from the one that appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. Most of the Beatles' development took place in the ivory tower of a recording studio and they abandoned doing live shows after their appearance in Candlestick Park on August 29th, 1966. The Beatles were perhaps the most talented studio band in the history of music. Until their last and final rooftop concert in 1969, nobody really knew what the Beatles sounded like live. ...And they sounded pretty ragged with numerous sound monitor problems.

Meanwhile the Stones were constantly touring from 1963 until 1970 and became the best live rock band, but their studio albums fell short of the Beatles stunning albums. But the Beatles had the recording studio advantage because they virtually lived in the EMI recording studios on Abbey Road from 1966 until 1969.

TheBig3 · 12-04-2013, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin B.

Both bands were great. The Rolling Stones stood pretty close to the blues and rhythm and blues music they played from the beginning. The Stones never really explored the psychedelic realm except for a brief moment on Satanic Majesties.

Over 7 or 8 years, the Beatles evolved into a completely different band from the one that appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. Most of the Beatles' development took place in the ivory tower of a recording studio and they abandoned doing live shows after their appearance in Candlestick Park on August 29th, 1966. The Beatles were perhaps the most talented studio band in the history of music. Until their last and final rooftop concert in 1969, nobody really knew what the Beatles sounded like live. ...And they sounded pretty ragged with numerous sound monitor problems.

Meanwhile the Stones were constantly touring from 1963 until 1970 and became the best live rock band, but their studio albums fell short of the Beatles stunning albums. But the Beatles had the recording studio advantage because they virtually lived in the EMI recording studios on Abbey Road from 1966 until 1969.

Good points, Gavin. I now hate the Beatles even more.

The Batlord · 12-05-2013, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3

Good points, Gavin. I now hate the Beatles even more.

12-04-2013, 08:46 PM	#1 (permalink)
Gavin B. Model Worker Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,248	Both bands were great. The Rolling Stones stood pretty close to the blues and rhythm and blues music they played from the beginning. The Stones never really explored the psychedelic realm except for a brief moment on Satanic Majesties. Over 7 or 8 years, the Beatles evolved into a completely different band from the one that appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. Most of the Beatles' development took place in the ivory tower of a recording studio and they abandoned doing live shows after their appearance in Candlestick Park on August 29th, 1966. The Beatles were perhaps the most talented studio band in the history of music. Until their last and final rooftop concert in 1969, nobody really knew what the Beatles sounded like live. ...And they sounded pretty ragged with numerous sound monitor problems. Meanwhile the Stones were constantly touring from 1963 until 1970 and became the best live rock band, but their studio albums fell short of the Beatles stunning albums. But the Beatles had the recording studio advantage because they virtually lived in the EMI recording studios on Abbey Road from 1966 until 1969. __________________ There are two types of music: the first type is the blues and the second type is all the other stuff. Townes Van Zandt