The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (amps, tracks, quote, performances)

ShadowSurfer · 09-01-2006, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

The more members thing is a bit of a red herring really.

In the Beatles you had 4 members contributing different songs & ideas. Lennon & McCartney had the monopoly on the songs but the other members were free to come up with other material too.

The Stones on the other hand were different , it was ALL Mick & Keef. One of the reasons Jones became such a f*ck up with booze & drugs was because he was getting depressed at not being able to come up with his own material to compete with Jagger & Richards stuff & finding himself on the sidelines of the band he started.
As for Mick Taylor , he was just an employee who was just told what to play.In fact the primary reason he left was because he was frustrated at not being able to record his own songs. As for Ronnie Wood , he came from a blue rock background with The Faces so getting him wasn`t much of a radical departure from what they were already doing.

Who cares. It's about what comes out of the speakers. And while The Beatles are great and squeeky clean, I like the STones because it's more rock n roll with a little more grit under the fingernails.

boo boo · 09-01-2006, 07:09 PM

See?... Even the major Stones fanboys are with me on this one, and you're still being just as ignorant as you are about KISS.

Both became popular by playing rock n roll, but when both started going psychedelic in 67 it's fairly obvious which one pulled it off and which one did not.

I'm not denying that The Stones are indeed quite a versatile band, having covered everything from blues to country to soul to funk, they clearly deserve a lot of respect... And they could change it up album after album too, but The Beatles could change it up song after song, and thats one reason they are considered to be the more innovative band, they were doing everything including the kitchen sink at a time when such things were not heard of in rock music, let alone acceptible, they experiemented with many studio techniques which were unorthodox of at the time but are hugely taken for granted today.

The Stones were more important when it came to the attitude elements of modern music, but The Beatles are respsonsable for the experimental aspect of it, theres no denying that The Stones were cooler, nastier and overall more badass, but they are by no means more diverse or experimental than The Beatles.

Also your more members example is ridiculous, The Polyphonic Spree has more members than Radiohead, you tell me which one is more diverse.

ShadowSurfer · 09-01-2006, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

Both became popular by playing rock n roll, but when both started going psychedelic in 67 it's fairly obvious which one pulled it off and which one did not.

That's merely your opinion.Some would say 2000 Light Years From Home is just as definative psychadelia as anything the Beatles put out there. And who are you kidding? The Beatles stole that whole trip from Brian Wilson and Pet Sounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

The Beatles could change it up song after song, and thats one reason they are considered to be the more innovative band, they were doing everything including the kitchen sink at a time when such things were not heard of in rock music, let alone acceptible,

Ya, right. The Beatles admit they stole it all from Brian Wilson and Pet Sounds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

The Stones were more important when it came to the attitude elements of modern music, but The Beatles are respsonsable for the experimental aspect of it,

As I said, Pet Sounds predates anything experimental by The Beatles.

~~bungalow~~ · 09-01-2006, 10:24 PM

Hah. Give it up dude.

ShadowSurfer · 09-01-2006, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DontRunMeOver

I am completely in agreement with Booboo. Calling the Stones the greatest, or even one of the greatest bands just seems bizarre to me.

May I ask what planet you'e from??

The Rolling Stones are widely regarded as one of the greatest rock n roll bands of all time, and rightly so.

..and who's still out there touring, selling out stadiums??
The Stones, and not The Beatles, who were never a very good live band.

sleepy jack · 09-01-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowSurfer

May I ask what planet you'e from??

The Rolling Stones are widely regarded as one of the greatest rock n roll bands of all time, and rightly so.

..and who's still out there touring, selling out stadiums??
The Stones, and not The Beatles, who were never a very good live band.

lol in your opinion.

~~bungalow~~ · 09-01-2006, 10:27 PM

The Beatles only toured for about 3 years (while a hugely popular band). And does it really suprise you that they don't tour anymore? I mean, c'mon.

And you tell all the people who came out to Hamburg religiously to watch the Beatles perform, that they weren't a good live band. Also, I love how you bring up that the Beatles stole from Pet Sounds. If Beatles stole Sgt. Pepper, from Pet Sounds, then The Stones stole Their Satanic Majesties from Sgt. Pepper. Hell, they'll admit it.

Raine · 09-01-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowSurfer

The Rolling Stones are widely regarded as one of the greatest rock n roll bands of all time, and rightly so.

..and who's still out there touring, selling out stadiums??
The Stones, and not The Beatles, who were never a very good live band.

The Beatles can't tour since a few of the members are dead I believe.

And the rolling Stones aren't all that great.

ShadowSurfer · 09-01-2006, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

lol in your opinion.

The Beatles were only a live band for less than ten years and had broken up by 1970. The STones have never stopped touring since 62. The Beatles were a live band at a time when it was very crude sound wise to be a touring band. The Beatles may have made great studio tracks, but as a live band they were never very good. The Stones however, were always a much stronger live band than The Beatles.

sleepy jack · 09-01-2006, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShadowSurfer

The Beatles were only a live band for less than ten years and had broken up by 1970. The STones have never stopped touring since 62. The Beatles were a live band at a time when it was very crude sound wise to be a touring band. The Beatles may have made great studio tracks, but as a live band they were never very good. The Stones however, were always a much stronger live band than The Beatles.

You're like fourty aren't you?

View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles
Stones	1,000,000,059	99.90%
Beatles	1,000,073	0.10%
Voters: 1001000132. You may not vote on this poll

09-01-2006, 10:24 PM	#334 (permalink)
~~bungalow~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hot-lanta Posts: 3,140	Hah. Give it up dude.

09-01-2006, 10:27 PM	#337 (permalink)
~~bungalow~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Hot-lanta Posts: 3,140	The Beatles only toured for about 3 years (while a hugely popular band). And does it really suprise you that they don't tour anymore? I mean, c'mon. And you tell all the people who came out to Hamburg religiously to watch the Beatles perform, that they weren't a good live band. Also, I love how you bring up that the Beatles stole from Pet Sounds. If Beatles stole Sgt. Pepper, from Pet Sounds, then The Stones stole Their Satanic Majesties from Sgt. Pepper. Hell, they'll admit it.