Strummer521

I don't know about all of it...but I remember reading that Lennon stumbled upon the idea of backwards recording when he was high.

lucylovestool

I like the Rolling Stones better but I think the Beatles helped to start the rock revolution.

__________________
It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom is what it is okay? Keep that in mind at all times. Thank you.
-Bill Hicks

Loser

Without the beatles there wouldn't be the rolling stones, who ever said they like the stones better think of that fact that the beatles are flat out better hands down.

Urban Hat€monger ?

There`s no doubting that the Beatles opened doors for other bands. That doesn`t mean that I have to hold them up as the be all & end all of everything.

__________________

tdoc210

They are both good, for me its inverse though, early stones > that early beatles, late beatles better than late stones ( post exile)

__________________
We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember... I... I... I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn't know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized... like I was shot... like I was shot with a diamond... a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God... the genius of that.

Strummer521

That's such a ridiculous statement. Not the content so much as the way its presented.

Loser says: Remember that opinion you had?...just keep in mind, it's wrong.

__________________

almauro

Charlie Watts v. Ringo? Mick Taylor v. George? Richards v. Lennon? Wyman V McCartney (Maybe a tie). Also, the Stones had some of the hottest session players of the day perform on their albums: Ry Cooder, Nicky Hopkins, Bobby Keyes, Billy Preston, etc. Just give "Sticky Fingers" a listen, and I'm sure you''ll hear what I'm taking about.

Party Guy

boo boo

Ringo. Rolling Stone as one of those "pure rock n roll" bands just used the same beats over and over. Neither are technical but Ringo was a lot more adaptable and he was more innovative as well.

George like there is no tomorrow.

Depends. As a singer and songwriter that would obviously go to Lennon. Though Lennon had some great riffs up his sleeve like Day Tripper and he was a great rhythm player, he was the weakest guitarist in the band. Richards has a lot of great riffs to his name so he takes this one, as long as we're talking strictly guitar.




That's a good one. McCartney is a great bass player, his basslines are so rich that they alone could carry a song. Wyman?... Yeah, he's up there with Noel Redding, Cliff Williams and Jason Newsted among all the other other guys of rock bassists.

Oh and if you want to bring up Jagger. He's a good singer, but not THAT good and he's all the band has. John, Paul and George were all better singers, and Ringo wasn't bad. They had those excellent harmonies. So there we have it. They were better songwriters, better musicians and better singers. Better in every concievable way.

And the Beatles didn't need session musicians, they had George Martin (who really was the 5th Beatle) playing piano and organ on some songs, Billy Preston on Let It Be and Eric Clapton on one song. They did everything else, they were a solid ensemble, much more than The Stones.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Rainard Jalen

I definitely prefer the Beatles for the songs and I prefer the type of music they played, but I have to give the Stones the nod here for their innovation.

Double X

McCartney is amazing on bass. Listen to 'Dear Prudence' and 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'.