The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (ticket, jazz, pop, rock)

FireInCairo · 10-17-2008, 10:32 PM

oh thats pretty lame

WendyCal · 10-17-2008, 11:25 PM

Beatles

for the same (exact) reasons as fyrenza.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Certainly. Would you want your daughter to marry a Rolling Stone?

(Proggy? You are too smart, by half again as much!!!)

Too bad the Stones didn't have an ad campaign ~

Would you want your daughter to marry a Beatle?

At the time, no one would have wanted ANYone's daughter to marry EITHER!

*** But the Stones WERE Skankier!

ProggyMan · 10-17-2008, 11:39 PM

But the Stones did have an ad campaign. Just because their bad boys doesn't mean they didn't have ad campaigns.

WendyCal · 10-18-2008, 12:42 AM

Sorry about that!

<~ has been having a sip or two (or maybe three...) of grog, so

i didn't mean to insinuate that the Stones didn't have ads ~ i was trying more to let y'all know what the general feeling towards EITHER bands members becoming part of the family would have been.

hermanshaw · 10-30-2008, 08:53 AM

Definately ROLLING STONES...
you listen to rock musicwith Stones,with Beattles you didn,t know whether you were listening to anything else than that childish
pop(love me do...);Beattles made some excellent music only in the third and final period of beng together(let it be...)
anyway I have been to both Stones concerts in Athens and Bucharest and I feel I don,t need another concert in my life;they were great...

Brad Stengel · 10-31-2008, 09:29 AM

The Rolling Stones are a superior rock band, while the Beatles are superior in a pop sense. I remember debating this once with my dad, when I liked the Beatles better, and I mentioned all the crappy albums after 'Exile on Main Street' that the Stones made. He said If Im allowed to count those, hes allowed to count all the crappy solo projects the Beatles had.

But, yeah, The Rolling Stones for sure. Between 1968 and 1972 they made four of the most perfect studio albums of all time. The Beatles only have two that come close.

Their best albums, "Abbey Road" and "Exile On Main Street", I'd say equal in greatness. Their second best, "Sgt. Pepper" versus "Let It Bleed" (a wonderful title based on the Beatles, 'Let It Be')-not even close, 'Let It Bleed is far superior. 'White Album' versus 'Sticky Fingers'...close, but only because it's a double album. Sticky Fingers is better than either of the two parts of the White ALbum if they're alone, although this is the closest in quality. "Beggars Banquet" versus "Revolver", no contest. Beggars Banquet is rawer, and with none of Paul McCartney's annoying novelty pop songs.

In conclusion, I love the Beatles, and if I was comparing them in a pop sense, I'd argue the opposite. I know the thread made no specification, but generally when I talk to people about this they mean, 'who's a better rock band' in which case it's the Stones, considering the Beatles never wrote any songs about fucking 15 year olds.

ModernRocker79 · 10-31-2008, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Stengel

The Rolling Stones are a superior rock band, while the Beatles are superior in a pop sense. I remember debating this once with my dad, when I liked the Beatles better, and I mentioned all the crappy albums after 'Exile on Main Street' that the Stones made. He said If Im allowed to count those, hes allowed to count all the crappy solo projects the Beatles had.

But, yeah, The Rolling Stones for sure. Between 1968 and 1972 they made four of the most perfect studio albums of all time. The Beatles only have two that come close.

Their best albums, "Abbey Road" and "Exile On Main Street", I'd say equal in greatness. Their second best, "Sgt. Pepper" versus "Let It Bleed" (a wonderful title based on the Beatles, 'Let It Be')-not even close, 'Let It Bleed is far superior. 'White Album' versus 'Sticky Fingers'...close, but only because it's a double album. Sticky Fingers is better than either of the two parts of the White ALbum if they're alone, although this is the closest in quality. "Beggars Banquet" versus "Revolver", no contest. Beggars Banquet is rawer, and with none of Paul McCartney's annoying novelty pop songs.

In conclusion, I love the Beatles, and if I was comparing them in a pop sense, I'd argue the opposite. I know the thread made no specification, but generally when I talk to people about this they mean, 'who's a better rock band' in which case it's the Stones, considering the Beatles never wrote any songs about fucking 15 year olds.

Yeh but do the Stones have 100 great songs? Are the Stones music is widely as interpeted as the Beatles? The answer is no. Please the Stones were a covers band until the Beatles inspired them to write their songs. There is plenty of filler on all their albums.

The Stones were better at doing the Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry thing. The Beatles were better at everything else. The Beatles were better doing the pop thing they revolutionized it from everthing backward instrumentation to guitar feedback. The Beatles were more complex and innovative.

The Beatles did the prog thing better also and they helped influenced it also. The Stones for the most part floundered except for some instances like "She A Rainbow' or "2000 Light Years from Home"..

The Beatles, for instance, used so many scales including for example: diatonic, chromatic, whole tone, pentatonic, hexatonic, heptatonic have five, six, and seven tone scales, respectively.
used in prehistoric music: ditonic or two, tritonic or three, tetratonic or four
used in jazz and modern classical music: octatonic or eight. Also, diminished, augmented, minor and major scales were used by the Beatles.

Brad Stengel · 11-01-2008, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ModernRocker79

Yeh but do the Stones have 100 great songs? Are the Stones music is widely as interpeted as the Beatles? The answer is no. Please the Stones were a covers band until the Beatles inspired them to write their songs. There is plenty of filler on all their albums.

The Stones were better at doing the Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry thing. The Beatles were better at everything else. The Beatles were better doing the pop thing they revolutionized it from everthing backward instrumentation to guitar feedback. The Beatles were more complex and innovative.

The Beatles did the prog thing better also and they helped influenced it also. The Stones for the most part floundered except for some instances like "She A Rainbow' or "2000 Light Years from Home"..

The Beatles, for instance, used so many scales including for example: diatonic, chromatic, whole tone, pentatonic, hexatonic, heptatonic have five, six, and seven tone scales, respectively.
used in prehistoric music: ditonic or two, tritonic or three, tetratonic or four
used in jazz and modern classical music: octatonic or eight. Also, diminished, augmented, minor and major scales were used by the Beatles.

The Stones absolutely have 100 great songs. And have you ever heard early Beatles albums? They were essentially a cover band as well, every band was at that time. Pick up an album from any rock band during the early-mid 60's and half the songs are covers, thats the way they did things.

And as far as scales, I could give a shit which they used. As far as Im concerned it has nothing to do with their music. People listen to The Beatles because it's catchy, memorable and timeless, not because they used different scales.

Radiohead90 · 11-01-2008, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brad Stengel

The Stones absolutely have 100 great songs. And have you ever heard early Beatles albums? They were essentially a cover band as well, every band was at that time. Pick up an album from any rock band during the early-mid 60's and half the songs are covers, thats the way they did things.

And as far as scales, I could give a shit which they used. As far as Im concerned it has nothing to do with their music. People listen to The Beatles because it's catchy, memorable and timeless, not because they used different scales.

The Beatles first original or no covers album. "A Hard Days Night" 1964. The Rolling Stones first original or no covers album "AfterMath" 1966. The Beatles were scoring their huge hits with all their own songs. It does not matter I love the Stones and the Beatles.

Rainard Jalen · 11-02-2008, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anticipation

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

what do you mean exactly by "more diverse"? i am curious. I cannot see how that could be the case.

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

10-17-2008, 10:32 PM	#581 (permalink)
FireInCairo Later on... Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Melbourne Posts: 1,235	oh thats pretty lame __________________ O G MUDBONE: Only You can prevent forest fires.

10-30-2008, 08:53 AM	#585 (permalink)
hermanshaw Groupie Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 2	Definately ROLLING STONES... you listen to rock musicwith Stones,with Beattles you didn,t know whether you were listening to anything else than that childish pop(love me do...);Beattles made some excellent music only in the third and final period of beng together(let it be...) anyway I have been to both Stones concerts in Athens and Bucharest and I feel I don,t need another concert in my life;they were great... __________________ Stock Music \| Free Sound Effects \| Royalty Free Music

10-31-2008, 09:29 AM	#586 (permalink)
Brad Stengel This Space for Rent Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 815	The Rolling Stones are a superior rock band, while the Beatles are superior in a pop sense. I remember debating this once with my dad, when I liked the Beatles better, and I mentioned all the crappy albums after 'Exile on Main Street' that the Stones made. He said If Im allowed to count those, hes allowed to count all the crappy solo projects the Beatles had. But, yeah, The Rolling Stones for sure. Between 1968 and 1972 they made four of the most perfect studio albums of all time. The Beatles only have two that come close. Their best albums, "Abbey Road" and "Exile On Main Street", I'd say equal in greatness. Their second best, "Sgt. Pepper" versus "Let It Bleed" (a wonderful title based on the Beatles, 'Let It Be')-not even close, 'Let It Bleed is far superior. 'White Album' versus 'Sticky Fingers'...close, but only because it's a double album. Sticky Fingers is better than either of the two parts of the White ALbum if they're alone, although this is the closest in quality. "Beggars Banquet" versus "Revolver", no contest. Beggars Banquet is rawer, and with none of Paul McCartney's annoying novelty pop songs. In conclusion, I love the Beatles, and if I was comparing them in a pop sense, I'd argue the opposite. I know the thread made no specification, but generally when I talk to people about this they mean, 'who's a better rock band' in which case it's the Stones, considering the Beatles never wrote any songs about fucking 15 year olds. __________________ These is the musics I own: http://rateyourmusic.com/collection/BradStengel/oo

10-17-2008, 11:39 PM	#583 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	But the Stones did have an ad campaign. Just because their bad boys doesn't mean they didn't have ad campaigns.

10-18-2008, 12:42 AM	#584 (permalink)
WendyCal Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 271	Sorry about that! <~ has been having a sip or two (or maybe three...) of grog, so i didn't mean to insinuate that the Stones didn't have ads ~ i was trying more to let y'all know what the general feeling towards EITHER bands members becoming part of the family would have been.