10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Surell · 10-29-2012, 04:36 PM

Not sure if serious or being dicked around.

swr112261 · 11-04-2013, 10:48 AM

The Beatles had three genius songwriters. That's one reason they broke up; not enough space on an album. McCartney still makes great records today.

I like both bands, but truthfully, the Stones haven't done anything worth a crap since 1978 and Some Girls.

Mr. Charlie · 11-04-2013, 10:55 AM

I can only think of 2 reasons.

1) I prefer the Stones.

2) The Let It Bleed album cover featured a cake baked by none other than Delia Smith. And everyone likes cake.

Taxman · 11-04-2013, 10:57 AM

Stones are great, but nobody and I mean nobody can beat the Fab Four.
But maybe I'm unable to tell cos I feel so much nostalgia towards the Beatles cos they were my first band and got me into music...

Mr. Charlie · 11-04-2013, 11:02 AM

The fab four are (or were) indeed fab. And the same goes for the Stones (they were fab, but I thought they were quite embarassing at Glanstonbury this year). But, yeah, music would be poorer without either band.

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.

DriveYourCarDownToTheSea · 12-08-2013, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hat€monger ?

4. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are better than kiddie love songs & mystical bollocks.
Beatles - Wrote chart friendly pop songs & ballads. Stones wrote gritty hard rock songs

This attitude always bugged me. It's actually a form of snobbery ("Ewww, I don't want to listen to any pop music. Make me gag!"). What's wrong with pop songs and ballads? Are you just too cool to enjoy something happy sounding?

Coolness is lame, and it isn't even really very cool. It tells me you're interested only in being dispassionate and repressing any emotion about happiness or contentment.

I don't mind the Stones, but I've noticed this streak in a lot of their fans, and have called them "Rock 'n Roll snobs" at times.

Writing songs about the full range of human emotions - the happy ones as well as the sad and mad ones - is a strength, not a weakness IMO.

Taxman · 12-09-2013, 08:43 AM

Beatles songs are sincere, Stones' sometimes were not.

11-04-2013, 10:48 AM	#582 (permalink)
swr112261 Groupie Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 1	Beatles The Beatles had three genius songwriters. That's one reason they broke up; not enough space on an album. McCartney still makes great records today. I like both bands, but truthfully, the Stones haven't done anything worth a crap since 1978 and Some Girls.

12-04-2013, 08:46 PM	#586 (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

11-04-2013, 10:55 AM	#583 (permalink)
Mr. Charlie Shoo Thoughts Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: These Mountains Posts: 2,308	I can only think of 2 reasons. 1) I prefer the Stones. 2) The Let It Bleed album cover featured a cake baked by none other than Delia Smith. And everyone likes cake.

11-04-2013, 10:57 AM	#584 (permalink)
Taxman watching the wheels Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Finland Posts: 470	Stones are great, but nobody and I mean nobody can beat the Fab Four. But maybe I'm unable to tell cos I feel so much nostalgia towards the Beatles cos they were my first band and got me into music...

11-04-2013, 11:02 AM	#585 (permalink)
Mr. Charlie Shoo Thoughts Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: These Mountains Posts: 2,308	The fab four are (or were) indeed fab. And the same goes for the Stones (they were fab, but I thought they were quite embarassing at Glanstonbury this year). But, yeah, music would be poorer without either band.

12-09-2013, 08:43 AM	#590 (permalink)
Taxman watching the wheels Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Finland Posts: 470	Beatles songs are sincere, Stones' sometimes were not.