The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (blues, rock, albums, titles)

Brad Stengel · 11-02-2008, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radiohead90

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.

True, The Beatles were among the pioneers of pop bands playing all their own songs, I was just remarking on how both filled their albums with many covers in their early years.

clatonisgod · 11-02-2008, 07:11 PM

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 beatle songs are the same!

Hilary · 11-04-2008, 09:03 AM

The Beatles win here.

I'm not a big fan of the Rolling Stones. The music isn't bad but it's somewhat overrated.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 11-04-2008, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilary

I'm not a big fan of the Rolling Stones. The music isn't bad but it's somewhat overrated.

By who?

People keep saying that but i've yet to see any evidence on it. All I see on here and many other places is one big Beatles circle jerk.

Brad Stengel · 11-04-2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

By who?

People keep saying that but i've yet to see any evidence on it. All I see on here and many other places is one big Beatles circle jerk.

Same here. I feel the Stones are generally underrated by the music community. The classic rock bores tend to focus on more psychadelic rock, since Ive never met a college kid with a Zeppelin shirt that's a fan of 'Beggars Banquet', and alot of people on here and other forums seem to dismiss them due to their lackluster post 1978 output.

Really the only people who rate them well are the aging hipsters who now make enough money to pay $400 a ticket to watch people who used to be talented decay in front of them, and nobody really takes their musical opinion seriously anyway.

cgw · 11-04-2008, 05:10 PM

A ridiculous argument. They are not comparable. Ying and yang, apples and oranges.
OK if a gun was held to my head and I had to pick one album, it would be Let it Bleed (I just put it on). On the other hand if I had to pick a catalog and had to listen to the ENTIRE catalog it would be the Beatles.

I just read Stengel's post and I guess I was making a comment on the the Stone's post 1978 output sort of.
On his other comment about the older bands in concert I have to agree. For example I'm a huge Who fan but have no real desire to see them in concert now (ditto NY Dolls, Sex Pistols who were performing in the last year or so). On the other hand I just saw Spingsteen earlier this year and he was great (only paid $100 which is still a lot).

clatonisgod · 11-04-2008, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

By who?

People keep saying that but i've yet to see any evidence on it. All I see on here and many other places is one big Beatles circle jerk.

WOW

Son of JayJamJah · 11-04-2008, 08:56 PM

Didn't we put the kibosh on vs. Threads?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 11-05-2008, 11:14 AM

Yes but this thread was made 3 years before that.

And Vs threads are not banned per se. Just rubbish ones are.

Veronica Lodge · 11-05-2008, 11:53 AM

to say that the stones are better than the beatles is INSANE.

what experimental steps did the stones take to step outside the box.

the stones are the epitome of radio rock - aka dry, boring, and tasteless.

the beatles, while YES, did have alot of "chart topping tunes", wrote some of the most incredible music, most of which self-titles "music gurus" haven't even bothered to seek out.

just sayin...

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

11-04-2008, 05:10 PM	#596 (permalink)
cgw Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 51	A ridiculous argument. They are not comparable. Ying and yang, apples and oranges. OK if a gun was held to my head and I had to pick one album, it would be Let it Bleed (I just put it on). On the other hand if I had to pick a catalog and had to listen to the ENTIRE catalog it would be the Beatles. I just read Stengel's post and I guess I was making a comment on the the Stone's post 1978 output sort of. On his other comment about the older bands in concert I have to agree. For example I'm a huge Who fan but have no real desire to see them in concert now (ditto NY Dolls, Sex Pistols who were performing in the last year or so). On the other hand I just saw Spingsteen earlier this year and he was great (only paid $100 which is still a lot). Last edited by cgw; 11-04-2008 at 05:21 PM.

11-05-2008, 11:14 AM	#599 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Yes but this thread was made 3 years before that. And Vs threads are not banned per se. Just rubbish ones are. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

11-05-2008, 11:53 AM	#600 (permalink)
Veronica Lodge Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Riverdale. Posts: 174	to say that the stones are better than the beatles is INSANE. what experimental steps did the stones take to step outside the box. the stones are the epitome of radio rock - aka dry, boring, and tasteless. the beatles, while YES, did have alot of "chart topping tunes", wrote some of the most incredible music, most of which self-titles "music gurus" haven't even bothered to seek out. just sayin... __________________ - Veronica Lodge - Yes, that IS what I said.

11-04-2008, 09:03 AM	#593 (permalink)
Hilary Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 103	The Beatles win here. I'm not a big fan of the Rolling Stones. The music isn't bad but it's somewhat overrated.