The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (singer, techno, blues, country) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-27-2008, 02:09 PM   #491 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double X View Post
McCartney is amazing on bass. Listen to 'Dear Prudence' and 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds'.
Paul's main skill is as a singer. He was a pretty decent bass player though.

It is also important to avoid judging the Beatles' instrumental skills on the basis of the years where they were no longer touring. A lot of people make this mistake. Hundreds of hours in the studio can make George Harrison sound like Jimmy Hendrix.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 03:42 PM   #492 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Paul's main skill is as a singer. He was a pretty decent bass player though.
Severe understatement. He played basslines that were very complex for their time, and he's one of the most innovative bassists in rock music, because of him more bass players began playing more of a leading role in the music. Like John Entwhistle and Chris Squire.

Abbey Road alone is a great bass album, and most of that was done in one take.

Quote:
It is also important to avoid judging the Beatles' instrumental skills on the basis of the years where they were no longer touring.
You don't have to. You could base it on their early material as well.

Quote:
A lot of people make this mistake. Hundreds of hours in the studio can make George Harrison sound like Jimmy Hendrix.
He didn't sound like Jimi Hendrix, and you can tell his solos weren't spliced up because they were simple and to the point and he could play live just like he could in the studio.

Seriously. Stop giving George Martin credit for EVERYTHING.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Old 06-27-2008, 11:22 PM   #493 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
Severe understatement. He played basslines that were very complex for their time, and he's one of the most innovative bassists in rock music, because of him more bass players began playing more of a leading role in the music. Like John Entwhistle and Chris Squire.

Abbey Road alone is a great bass album, and most of that was done in one take.
You might be right, but most essentially: source please...

Quote:
You don't have to. You could base it on their early material as well.
Hence why I called him a pretty decent bass player and not a brilliant one (since the most impressive lines seem to be post 66???).

Quote:
He didn't sound like Jimi Hendrix, and you can tell his solos weren't spliced up because they were simple and to the point and he could play live just like he could in the studio.
I was just making a point that such a feat would be possible, and hence it's important to leave judgement of instrumental skills to actual live performances.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 06-28-2008, 08:35 AM   #494 (permalink)
sleepe
 
Double X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: boston
Posts: 1,140
Default

How about on the rooftop concert where he played Don't Let Me Down, One After 909, and I Want You? Three great bass lines that he played live.

It's just idiotic to write him off because the Beatles were sick of concerts.
Double X is offline  
Old 06-28-2008, 08:52 AM   #495 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Double X View Post
How about on the rooftop concert where he played Don't Let Me Down, One After 909, and I Want You? Three great bass lines that he played live.

It's just idiotic to write him off because the Beatles were sick of concerts.
It was not a write-off, but a caution. At any rate, I've already said, no doubt Paul was a good bass player.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 06-28-2008, 09:32 AM   #496 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
The Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 803
Default

The Beatles were superior in every aspect, IMO.
The Monkey is offline  
Old 06-28-2008, 09:39 AM   #497 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Monkey View Post
The Beatles were superior in every aspect, IMO.
Every aspect aside from two: dancing skills, and innovation.

EDIT: You know what, screw that. The Beatles are better than the Stones in every single way. Listening to mis-steps from other great artists such as Bowie and so forth makes me appreciate just how good the Beatles actually were. I believe they stand as the only band I have EVER listened to for whom even the FILLER songs are actually good, catchy and listenable. Who else can boast that - virtually nobody. For that alone the Lennon-McCartney team must be the greatest of all time.

EDIT: But Mick Jagger is a better dancer than John and Paul by far.

Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 06-28-2008 at 11:57 AM.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 05:24 AM   #498 (permalink)
Fish in the percolator!
 
Seltzer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Hobbit Land NZ
Posts: 2,870
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen View Post
Paul's main skill is as a singer. He was a pretty decent bass player though.
I'll try to keep my Beatles fanboy bias out of this, but as a bassist myself, I think McCartney is one of the greatest bassists ever. He never overplays, yet his basslines are incredibly intricate... every bassist wishes they could write basslines as perfect as his... change one note and the whole song is destroyed. He has quite a unique style and his tone is lovely.
__________________
Seltzer is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 05:52 AM   #499 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Ghostrider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 131
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loser View Post
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.
No doubts where you stand on this issue, I do like the Beatles better, I might be just a little biased though,,,lol,,,I actually watched their North American debut on the Ed Sullivan show in black and white,,,the girls screaming constantly throughout the set I found extremely annoying, but the moment is permanently etched in my consciousness now. I like the Stones,,,but the Beatles reached me on a different level, plus not only the music they made, but they helped advance the quality of the recording industry as a whole, not just great songs, but great sounding recordings too.(Obviously I'm referring to their later albums when they had the money to get the very best technology and play around with it.) I had an argument with a good friend(Stones fanatic..), about this years ago,,,I would have way more respect had the Stones tried harder in the studio on the production side of their music, some of which was excellent, but the shoddy "let's get drunk and play around in the studio when we cut this album attitude", always hurt the overall sound of most of their albums. I think that's one of the reasons most people enjoy the Stones live,,,they put on a great show and the sound itself surpasses many of their studio recordings.(I'm an in no way slighting them for their songwriting skills, just wishing they cared more about the finished product, you can improve the production/engineering quality without sacrificing the natural raw edge of their sound.)

Last edited by Ghostrider; 06-29-2008 at 05:55 AM. Reason: Manual syntax checker..lol.
Ghostrider is offline  
Old 06-29-2008, 07:25 AM   #500 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,221
Default

To be honest though, the Beatles vs Rolling Stones is a VERY bad comparison to make. REALLY bad. For starters, they're essentially not even of the same genre! And that goes for any given period of their coexistence. If one wants to do a Beatles vs X thread, at least make sure that X is one of the melodic bands of the 60s. It would be fairer to have a Beatles vs Kinks or Beatles vs Beach Boys thread than this ridiculous comparison. I mean, just on what point can one argue that either is better than the other? In terms of catchy songs? Well, catchy songs was more the focus of the Beatles than it was of the Stones. Riffs? Well obviously the Stones would have to win that because the Beatles didn't really write that much riff driven music all in all. Quality of vocals? Well, they were singing in different styles and to different audiences. Number of memorable songs? Well, you could make an argument for the Beatles on that basis, but then a hardcore Stones fan might object and say that he/she doesn't find the Beatles' music as memorable as the best of the Stones' 60s catalogue.
Rainard Jalen is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.