10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

clutnuckle · 02-28-2011, 06:04 PM

I far too sophisticated to listen to rock music, I listen to art.

Discuss.

almauro · 02-28-2011, 06:28 PM

The Who v The Stones. Look at it as a boxing match. The Who may get the early knockdown, but the Stones will always win on points.

Ben Butler · 03-01-2011, 07:05 AM

Rolling Stones are better, The Beatles are the most overrated band of all time.

Neapolitan · 04-17-2011, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

Talented in that he stuck to what he did best - pure timekeeping - yes, but who needs timekeeping when you can get the rolls from "I can see for miles" or "Bargain"?

On the contrary with "pure timekeeping" Charlie Watts could take it or leave, it didn't matter to him one way or the other and that what makes him infinitely better than Keith Moon! Just listen to these track and prepare to have your mind blown with Charlie Watts unorthodox time keeping!

Dotoar · 04-22-2011, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

On the contrary with "pure timekeeping" Charlie Watts could take it or leave, it didn't matter to him one way or the other and that what makes him infinitely better than Keith Moon! Just listen to these track and prepare to have your mind blown with Charlie Watts unorthodox time keeping!

He's good at what he did, I'm not arguing about that. It's just that what he did is dull and unimaginative.

Burning Down · 04-22-2011, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dotoar

He's good at what he did, I'm not arguing about that. It's just that what he did is dull and unimaginative.

I think Charlie Watts is an underrated drummer. He's all business, and he doesn't fool around on the kit. He and Bill Wyman made up one of the best rhythm sections in rock, in my opinion. What Charlie lacked in imagination, Bill made up for it with great basslines.

s_k · 04-22-2011, 09:51 AM

So I just read those 10 'facts' in the first posting.
And I cannot help but think: Yes, but still I think in the mid/late 60's the beatles were far more ingenious than the stones have ever been... I'm sorry.
There's just one stones song I think is utterly brilliant. There's some nice songs, but only one that's really brilliant. And that's this one:

1981.
Props for making a song that good in the 80's, but still...
I just prefer the beatles for their music writing abilities and I don't really care for their appeal or the length of their career.

Dotoar · 04-22-2011, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

I think Charlie Watts is an underrated drummer. He's all business, and he doesn't fool around on the kit. He and Bill Wyman made up one of the best rhythm sections in rock, in my opinion. What Charlie lacked in imagination, Bill made up for it with great basslines.

I don't think he's underrated at all; as soon as he's mentioned in any drummer discussion, hordes of Stones apologists gather round to claim him the master of the game by pointing out the obvious - that he's simply holding down the rythm. But you could say the same thing about Phil Rudd as well, and I don't see him revered for being a master timekeeper.

Colby4780 · 04-26-2011, 04:23 PM

I would have to say Stones, the Beatles are not gritty enough for me, Stones really get down to business with their lyrics.

BastardofYoung · 05-02-2011, 06:54 PM

I think The Beatles are the better of the two personally. In many ways, The Stones just followed in The Beatles footprint. "Their Satanic Majesties Request" for example was no more than their attempt at recreating "Sgt.Pepper...." and much of their output was like that.

While I like the Stones, I think The Beatles will always be the better group. The Stones to me were always more image over art, while The Beatles were really into all aspects.

"Under My Thumb" is one of my favorite songs, but when looking at The Stones as a whole, I think they have more failure than success to their name.

I appreciate both bands in their own right, but to say they were better than The Beatles is a bold statement.

But different strokes I suppose.

02-28-2011, 06:28 PM	#322 (permalink)
almauro Way Out There Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 850	The Who v The Stones. Look at it as a boxing match. The Who may get the early knockdown, but the Stones will always win on points. __________________ rock n music blog Last edited by almauro; 02-28-2011 at 07:56 PM.

04-22-2011, 09:51 AM	#327 (permalink)
s_k Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,206	So I just read those 10 'facts' in the first posting. And I cannot help but think: Yes, but still I think in the mid/late 60's the beatles were far more ingenious than the stones have ever been... I'm sorry. There's just one stones song I think is utterly brilliant. There's some nice songs, but only one that's really brilliant. And that's this one: 1981. Props for making a song that good in the 80's, but still... I just prefer the beatles for their music writing abilities and I don't really care for their appeal or the length of their career. __________________ Click here to see my collection

04-26-2011, 04:23 PM	#329 (permalink)
Colby4780 Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Location: Atlanta Posts: 89	I would have to say Stones, the Beatles are not gritty enough for me, Stones really get down to business with their lyrics. __________________ My Collection

05-02-2011, 06:54 PM	#330 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	I think The Beatles are the better of the two personally. In many ways, The Stones just followed in The Beatles footprint. "Their Satanic Majesties Request" for example was no more than their attempt at recreating "Sgt.Pepper...." and much of their output was like that. While I like the Stones, I think The Beatles will always be the better group. The Stones to me were always more image over art, while The Beatles were really into all aspects. "Under My Thumb" is one of my favorite songs, but when looking at The Stones as a whole, I think they have more failure than success to their name. I appreciate both bands in their own right, but to say they were better than The Beatles is a bold statement. But different strokes I suppose. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

02-28-2011, 06:04 PM	#321 (permalink)
clutnuckle Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: -_-_-_-_~__~-~_-`_`-~_-`-~-~ Posts: 1,276	I far too sophisticated to listen to rock music, I listen to art. Discuss.

03-01-2011, 07:05 AM	#323 (permalink)
Ben Butler Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Rudheath Posts: 393	Rolling Stones are better, The Beatles are the most overrated band of all time.