Rolling Stones or Aerosmith?

Bulldog · 05-19-2010, 11:42 AM

Aerosmith wrote Don't Wanna Miss a Thing, so the Stones win by a landslide for me. I do like a few of Aerosmith's 70s albums though.

Unknown Soldier · 05-19-2010, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VocalsBass

Yeah....its not really a fair comparison to make, I would think that 'The Rolling Stones vs The Who' would be a more viable choice, but we did get some good statistics concerning the Stones & Aerosmith, Rock On!

From a creativity point of view yes, but the comparison was probably based on the idea, that Aerosmith were very much an American version of the Stones but in a far more basic hard rock form.

For the record, I also far prefer the Who to the Stones as well.

Insane Guest · 05-19-2010, 11:56 AM

I think a more fair comparison would be Led Zeppelin and The Beatles. But yeah, The Rolling Stones are just too good of a band to compare to a mediocre band like Aerosmith.

million dollar basher · 05-19-2010, 12:02 PM

I was literally just having this discussion with a co-worker.
We're both huge Stones fans, both of us being particularly fond of the records that came out of the period between 1967 and 1977. But neither of us were able to dispute, despite our mutual distaste for Aerosmith's work by and large, that the first four Aerosmith records, especially "Toys in the Attic", were fantastic. But I think that's why the Stones will always be better. They churned out fantastic records all through the 60's, then on into the 70's, and even into the 80's. They produced consistently great albums for three solid decades, and they're still touring and playing gigs to boot, whereas Aerosmith's "solid record" run, at least as far as I'm concerned, only lasted for a few years. Their material from the 1980's is very very weak.

What it really comes down to is this:
The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock and roll band of all time because they know the nature of the beast. "Sympathy for the Devil" is really the mission statement of rock and roll.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 05-19-2010, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gavin B.

every one of the Stones band members are are far more creative musicians than the Aerosmith crew.

You say that but Joe Perry's solo albums are better than anything put out by the Stones individually.

I'd rather die than listen to a Jagger solo album.

Julia Dream · 05-19-2010, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VocalsBass

Aerosmith was the band back in the 70s with albums like Toys In The Attic, Get Your Wings, & Rocks. Aerosmith was true to their music in those days with songs like, 'Back in the saddle', 'Last Child', and so on. My favorite Aerosmith album has always been 'Get Your Wings', To me Joe Perry never really did that much on guitar, for me anyway, but with Steven Tyler, Perry & Tyler became as one with Aerosmith. Some of the drum beats produced by Aerosmith can stand up with any other bands from that era of Rock,
like Bad Company & Kiss, of course not to the more progressive rock & classical influences used by other bands of that era like Rush,Triumph,&Yes, Aerosmith did just as much in the 70s+ era, just as so did the Rolling stones in the mid to late 60s and on into the 70s and the 80s also, just as Aerosmith did. The Stones are Legends in the history of rock music , I could go on & on but, To Me...both of these bands are different in many ways, and I have the highest of respect for both bands, I could never say which band I like the most because I like them both equally and they are not alike with they're music, I honestly dont think anyone cound honestly say that one is better than the other. Only choose a personal favorite between the Stones or Aerosmith. So in conclusion, I would say that the stones started when things were making a change in the world, with music, social structure, war, and they were around the time of the British invasion. where Aerosmith inspired & influenced other bands & musicians through the decades also, just as the Stones have done also. But its fun to debate and hear other opinions on the subject, hope I didnt rant & rave too awful much,but supper is almost ready and Im in a hurry to finish so I can eat & catch a movie.

That's a very fair and unbiased opinion. It would be rather unfair of me to say that the Stones have better albums than Aerosmith since I haven't actually sat through any entire Aerosmith album aside from greatest hit compilations.

Also, I choose this comparison because they are both groups heavily influenced by the blues and are often debated. Most places I've seen it Aerosmith is the more popular choice, but I haven't found a well backed pro-Aerosmith argument yet. Personally it's good to see strong Stones support though! There are many pairings of two bands you could debate, but this is the one I find the most interesting and that I have a stronger opinion on.

Unknown Soldier · 05-19-2010, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julia Dream

That's a very fair and unbiased opinion. It would be rather unfair of me to say that the Stones have better albums than Aerosmith since I haven't actually sat through any entire Aerosmith album aside from greatest hit compilations.

Also, I choose this comparison because they are both groups heavily influenced by the blues and are often debated. Most places I've seen it Aerosmith is the more popular choice, but I haven't found a well backed pro-Aerosmith argument yet. Personally it's good to see strong Stones support though! There are many pairings of two bands you could debate, but this is the one I find the most interesting and that I have a stronger opinion on.

You say you haven`t listened to any Aerosmith albums apart from a greatest hits, why don`t you listen to both "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks" a couple of times and then you can really have an opinion on the band, their sound here is far removed from what is a greatest hits package of the 80`s onwards.

Julia Dream · 05-19-2010, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

You say you haven`t listened to any Aerosmith albums apart from a greatest hits, why don`t you listen to both "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks" a couple of times and then you can really have an opinion on the band, their sound here is far removed from what is a greatest hits package of the 80`s onwards.

I'll give those a try sometime. Living in the city where Aerosmith comes from and has a huge fan base in, I've heard about every song that is widely considered "memorable" by them, and that's what I'm basing my opinion off of for the most part. I never liked them enough to actually listen to one of their albums, though it is true that I wouldn't know what it holds. I have changed my opinion on artists for the better after listening to a full album if it's good.

SippinOnMoet · 05-20-2010, 11:52 AM

I personally can't stand either one of these bands. Overall, the Stones are BY FAR the better band. Look at their influence level compared to the stereotypical rock mockery that is Aerosmith. To me, it's not even a comparison. Aerosmith wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the Rolling Stones. I think there should be no debate here. The Stones played alongside (not literally) the Beatles. Aerosmith opened for Van Halen. End of story, I rest my case.

Sljslj · 05-20-2010, 12:31 PM

this is an easy one, Stones. Although I have immense repect for what both bands do/have done.

05-20-2010, 11:52 AM	#19 (permalink)
SippinOnMoet Groupie Join Date: May 2010 Location: Lafayette, Indiana Posts: 1	Aerosmith or Stones? I personally can't stand either one of these bands. Overall, the Stones are BY FAR the better band. Look at their influence level compared to the stereotypical rock mockery that is Aerosmith. To me, it's not even a comparison. Aerosmith wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the Rolling Stones. I think there should be no debate here. The Stones played alongside (not literally) the Beatles. Aerosmith opened for Van Halen. End of story, I rest my case.

05-19-2010, 11:42 AM	#11 (permalink)
Bulldog why bother? Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: UK Posts: 4,840	Aerosmith wrote Don't Wanna Miss a Thing, so the Stones win by a landslide for me. I do like a few of Aerosmith's 70s albums though.

05-19-2010, 11:56 AM	#13 (permalink)
Insane Guest Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: CA Posts: 1,322	I think a more fair comparison would be Led Zeppelin and The Beatles. But yeah, The Rolling Stones are just too good of a band to compare to a mediocre band like Aerosmith.

05-19-2010, 12:02 PM	#14 (permalink)
million dollar basher Music Addict Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: trapped in a basement Posts: 184	I was literally just having this discussion with a co-worker. We're both huge Stones fans, both of us being particularly fond of the records that came out of the period between 1967 and 1977. But neither of us were able to dispute, despite our mutual distaste for Aerosmith's work by and large, that the first four Aerosmith records, especially "Toys in the Attic", were fantastic. But I think that's why the Stones will always be better. They churned out fantastic records all through the 60's, then on into the 70's, and even into the 80's. They produced consistently great albums for three solid decades, and they're still touring and playing gigs to boot, whereas Aerosmith's "solid record" run, at least as far as I'm concerned, only lasted for a few years. Their material from the 1980's is very very weak. What it really comes down to is this: The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock and roll band of all time because they know the nature of the beast. "Sympathy for the Devil" is really the mission statement of rock and roll.

05-20-2010, 12:31 PM	#20 (permalink)
Sljslj The Omniscient Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Reno, Nevada, USA Posts: 998	this is an easy one, Stones. Although I have immense repect for what both bands do/have done.