The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (ticket, blues, country, rock)

TheBig3 · 09-27-2005, 08:44 PM

So this is what its like to be involved in a conspiracy.

boo boo · 09-28-2005, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boris jawaka

the stones were pretty much boring white honkies who could rarely stray from the boundaries of the blues scale in many of their songs and pretty much every solo ever on any stones record

I wouldn't take it that far, to be fair they did also play elements of folk and country, Their Satanic Majestys Request is a underrated psychedelic rock album, hated by critics but it was a pretty respectable attempt for the stones to try something different.

DontRunMeOver · 09-28-2005, 04:19 AM

I'd definitely go for the Beatles over the Stones, as I think the Beatles did what they did what they did (write songs which you remember, which people like to sing, which other musicians like to play) better than anybody else in a very long time.

Sure the Stones had more attitude, swagger, they wrote more obviously 'gritty' songs and consistently dressed cooler than the Beatles, but then so have a lot of other bands. They may have been the first band to do 'dangerous' in a way which we can still recognise today, but the danger, attitude and swagger have all been massively, massively topped by multitudes of bands since the 60's. What the Beatles created - a huge stash of whisteable, memorable tunes some of which will probably still be sung hundreds of years from now - can't sensibly be compared to the Rolling Stones with passing cultural importance. To me this is like saying Shakespeare actually wasn't such a great playwrite because there was another guy around at the same time who wore more colourful clothes, had syphilis and a big snuff problem.

DontRunMeOver · 09-28-2005, 04:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boris jawaka

the beatles win anyday

the stones were pretty much boring white honkies who could rarely stray from the boundaries of the blues scale in many of their songs and pretty much every solo ever on any stones record

I agree with this completely. After playing some Stones CDs for a while I went out and bought some blues music by some actual black americans, after which my Stones CDs went out of the window and I listened to these instead, as they were much, much better. Mick Jagger went to LSE, do you know where that is? What kind of blues does that give him?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-28-2005, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boris jawaka

the stones were pretty much boring white honkies who could rarely stray from the boundaries of the blues scale in many of their songs and pretty much every solo ever on any stones record

I think you mean Led Zeppelin

boo boo · 09-28-2005, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I think you mean Led Zeppelin

I think you mean neither.

And zeppelin were more than just a blues band btw.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 09-28-2005, 11:35 AM

Well I know that but of you`re (Well him anyway) going to call the Stones 'just' a bunch of blues rip offs Led Zeppelin are probably twice as guilty of it

boo boo · 09-28-2005, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Well I know that but of you`re (Well him anyway) going to call the Stones 'just' a bunch of blues rip offs Led Zeppelin are probably twice as guilty of it

Well i strongly disagree with that guys statement, i dont consider RS a blues rip off band, and they are certainly not boring.

TheBig3 · 09-28-2005, 11:55 AM

Im assuming LSE is a school, but regardless of what it is, if your well educated you have less blues? I'd disagree, Tom Waits said "I know, its tough all over" refering to everyone having hardships in their own right. Secondly I'll say ignorance is bliss and paranoia (knowing everything) is never what someone wants to be.

Women are always a source of good blues.

I'd also like to add that in addition to all the styles listed above, they also swung disco, samba, and proto-punk on shattered. Lets not assume there only blues, unless of course you don't know what your tlaking about and have only heard three songs (which im assuming is the case with some people here based on the responces).

Im not sure which beatles song stands as the most covered, but I'd be willing to be its never been covered more than "Wild Horses" which seems to get broken out more often than not on great musicians tours.

boo boo · 09-28-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Im not sure which beatles song stands as the most covered, but I'd be willing to be its never been covered more than "Wild Horses" which seems to get broken out more often than not on great musicians tours.

"Yesterday" is in the guiness book of world records for most covered rock song in history.

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

09-27-2005, 08:44 PM	#81 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	So this is what its like to be involved in a conspiracy. __________________ I've moved to a new address

09-28-2005, 11:35 AM	#87 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Well I know that but of you`re (Well him anyway) going to call the Stones 'just' a bunch of blues rip offs Led Zeppelin are probably twice as guilty of it __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

09-28-2005, 11:55 AM	#89 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	Im assuming LSE is a school, but regardless of what it is, if your well educated you have less blues? I'd disagree, Tom Waits said "I know, its tough all over" refering to everyone having hardships in their own right. Secondly I'll say ignorance is bliss and paranoia (knowing everything) is never what someone wants to be. Women are always a source of good blues. I'd also like to add that in addition to all the styles listed above, they also swung disco, samba, and proto-punk on shattered. Lets not assume there only blues, unless of course you don't know what your tlaking about and have only heard three songs (which im assuming is the case with some people here based on the responces). Im not sure which beatles song stands as the most covered, but I'd be willing to be its never been covered more than "Wild Horses" which seems to get broken out more often than not on great musicians tours. __________________ I've moved to a new address

09-28-2005, 04:19 AM	#83 (permalink)
DontRunMeOver They call me Tundra Boy Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: In your linen cupboard. Posts: 1,166	I'd definitely go for the Beatles over the Stones, as I think the Beatles did what they did what they did (write songs which you remember, which people like to sing, which other musicians like to play) better than anybody else in a very long time. Sure the Stones had more attitude, swagger, they wrote more obviously 'gritty' songs and consistently dressed cooler than the Beatles, but then so have a lot of other bands. They may have been the first band to do 'dangerous' in a way which we can still recognise today, but the danger, attitude and swagger have all been massively, massively topped by multitudes of bands since the 60's. What the Beatles created - a huge stash of whisteable, memorable tunes some of which will probably still be sung hundreds of years from now - can't sensibly be compared to the Rolling Stones with passing cultural importance. To me this is like saying Shakespeare actually wasn't such a great playwrite because there was another guy around at the same time who wore more colourful clothes, had syphilis and a big snuff problem.