The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (blues, rock, album, elvis presley)

OGE1 · 01-15-2007, 07:57 PM

stones...only just, ask me another day and i might say beatles. tough to compare

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LedZepStu

when i think of the stones i think of haggard old men that should of given up 20 years ago. You mention the beatles watered down psychedelic pop, the stones attempts at psychedelia were terrible. its like the white stripes going all synth on us.

Actually, they should've done us all a favor and given up in 1978, after they went disco with crap songs like "Miss You". The Stones sold out big time.

The Beatles never sold out. They made kick-butt albums like Abbey Road right up to the end.

And there was nothing watered down about "Strawberry Fields Forever", "Within You, Without You" etc.---classic 60's psychedelia at its best. The Beatles were a huge influence on Syd Barrett, Roger Waters and David Gilmour.

boo boo · 01-16-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

It's not cohesive. Therefore, although pretty much all of the songs are very good, I don't think it's so great of an album. The tracks could have been in a completely different order and the effect would be the same, therefore structurally, it's not really a piece of art like the others. It seems like the songs were recorded and compiled without any thought as to assembling songs that worked well together as a unit. That's not terribly surprising, since the album was only just starting to take off as a distinctive statement of the artist's style and intent, rather than a collection of songs being released on one disc when Experienced came out. Jimi caught on to the trend pretty quickly anyway.

An example of my point: Exile on Main Street is often considered the Stones best album, but most would agree it doesn't have any individual songs that stand equal to "Sympathy for the Devil" or "Gimme Shelter". The level of an album's quality should be measured in how well all of the songs fit together.

I like how this thread is suddenly taking a new direction.

WTF, the songs in AYE? fit together perfectly, and even if they didn't, putting a little diversity in a album never hurts anybody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Man

The Beatles never sold out. They made kick-butt albums like Abbey Road right up to the end.

They did sell out, but unlike the Stones, they had the sense to sell out on their very first album, they were always a mainstream band, even during their experimental period.

So unlike the Stones, The Beatles never lost any credibility during the span of their career, unless you count the whole "more popular than Jesus Christ" thing.

Another thing is that The Beatles were wise enough to quit during their prime, as opposed to The Rolling Stones, who should have quit over 40 f*cking years ago.

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

They did sell out, but unlike the Stones, they had the sense to sell out on their very first album, they were always a mainstream band, even during their experimental period.

So unlike the Stones, The Beatles never lost any credibility during the span of their career, unless you count the whole "more popular than Jesus Christ" thing.

Another thing is that The Beatles were wise enough to quit during their prime, as opposed to The Rolling Stones, who should have quit over 40 f*cking years ago.

No, the Beatles didn't sell out.

"Selling out" is something a band or musician does when, for example, they start and gain fame as a hard rock band, then turn to light pop later in their careers. They betray their roots.

The Beatles NEVER betrayed their roots. If the Beatles were "always" a mainstream pop band from start to finish as you claim, then by your own definition they NEVER sold out.

And I think most people here would disagree that the Stones should've quit over 40 years ago. Because that means many of their very best 60's recordings, BEFORE they sold out, would've never happened. I would agree with you if you had said they should've quit 30 years ago.

I'm not here to bash the Stones. I'm a huge fan of most of their 60's to mid-70's recordings. But there's no denying they sold out big time when they went disco in 1978. Just like there's no denying they never reached the same heights as the Beatles.

Rainard Jalen · 01-16-2007, 10:18 AM

I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-16-2007, 11:04 AM

I`m still trying to get my head around this 'the stones should have given up years ago' thing.

Why should they?

They still get a kick out of playing live , there are thousands of people willing to watch them play and above all they have a back catalogue that most bands would kill for.

So there current material isn`t so good , hardly a crime , they might not have made a great album since the early 70s but they`ve still written some great tunes since then.
The way I see it the stuff they wrote in the 60s & early 70s is of such good quality these songs deserve to be heard.I`ve never heard anybody say of BB King 'Oh that old bastard hasn`t recorded a decent album in decades & should give up now he`s in his eighties'.

Besides i`d rather the Stones stuck together than split up & force crap like Mull Of Kintrye & The Frog Chorus on us.

gregb · 01-16-2007, 11:23 AM

the stones started the imagine of the "rock star"

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

You've just perfectly described the Rolling Stones for about the last 30 years.

The Beatles' creative process was one of the most sophisticated in recording industry history, and they continued to turn out top quality albums right up to the end with "Abbey Road".

My point stands---the Beatles NEVER sold out. The Stones sold out big time with disco crap like "Miss You".

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gregb

the stones started the imagine of the "rock star"

^Horsefeathers!

Elvis Presley was a rock star before the Rolling Stones even existed.

The Beatles became instant rock stars on 09 February 1964, when they first appeared on TV on the Ed Sullivan show. That is still the most watched program in television history.

Hardly anybody even knew who the Stones were, when the Beatles led the charge of the British Invasion in February 1964.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-16-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Man

My point stands---the Beatles NEVER sold out. The Stones sold out big time with disco crap like "Miss You".

If we`re talking about a bands nadir here Yellow Submarine & Octopus Garden take some beating.

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

01-16-2007, 11:04 AM	#446 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I`m still trying to get my head around this 'the stones should have given up years ago' thing. Why should they? They still get a kick out of playing live , there are thousands of people willing to watch them play and above all they have a back catalogue that most bands would kill for. So there current material isn`t so good , hardly a crime , they might not have made a great album since the early 70s but they`ve still written some great tunes since then. The way I see it the stuff they wrote in the 60s & early 70s is of such good quality these songs deserve to be heard.I`ve never heard anybody say of BB King 'Oh that old bastard hasn`t recorded a decent album in decades & should give up now he`s in his eighties'. Besides i`d rather the Stones stuck together than split up & force crap like Mull Of Kintrye & The Frog Chorus on us. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

01-15-2007, 07:57 PM	#441 (permalink)
OGE1 Groupie Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 7	stones...only just, ask me another day and i might say beatles. tough to compare

01-16-2007, 10:18 AM	#445 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,221	I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

01-16-2007, 11:23 AM	#447 (permalink)
gregb www.physicsforums.com Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 385	the stones started the imagine of the "rock star"