10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

djchameleon · 07-06-2011, 10:30 AM

I swear Keith is a bloody zombie, If I ever met him in person I'd attempt to shoot out his brains before he decides to snack on mines.

HEADSHOT boom!

starrynight · 07-06-2011, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

You guys think Octopus's Garden is great? Well at least no one has said anything about Yellow Sub. Still think you guys are crazy.

So if the Beatles did release a flawless album, what was it in you guys opinions?

Abbey Road. And I still don't see a perfect album by The Rolling Stones. Let it Bleed might be their best, but I wouldn't say it was flawless. The Beatles just had more variety and consistency. Even in the 60s I don't think The Rolling Stones were that great. Some standout tracks like Satisfaction and Jumpin Jack Flash, but not a truly great album. And Yellow Submarine isn't crap, it's quite a well produced song.

starrynight · 07-06-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

Really the Stones were ahead of the game comparing some firsts to the Beatles. The Stones were the first band to have a sitar recorded on an album and the first band to write all the tracks on an album.

Wrong.

Sitar in popular music - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Beatles (Norwegian Wood) did it before The Rolling Stones. Not only that but Brian Jones taught himself to play sitar after having visited George Harrison.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-06-2011, 01:55 PM

I have it on good authority that many indian artists recorded sitars on albums years before the Beatles.

starrynight · 07-06-2011, 01:58 PM

An Indian pop or rock group recorded music with a sitar before The Beatles?

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-06-2011, 01:59 PM

Ravi Shankar was playing western music on the sitar as long ago as the early 50s

starrynight · 07-06-2011, 02:11 PM

I think this, as it was brought up, was more about whether The Rolling Stones were the first western group to use a sitar or not. The wikipedia page I linked comes from that perspective. Anyway I don't care who was the first, the fact is The Rolling Stones weren't and that they just followed what The Beatles did.

BastardofYoung · 07-06-2011, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Rethinking it, The Stones have 3 or 4 flawless albums while the Beatles don't have a single one. (Abbey is screwed over by Octopus's Garden and Revolver is messed up by Yellow Sub)

Keep thinking.

Neapolitan · 07-06-2011, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by starrynight

I think this, as it was brought up, was more about whether The Rolling Stones were the first western group to use a sitar or not. The wikipedia page I linked comes from that perspective. Anyway I don't care who was the first, the fact is The Rolling Stones weren't and that they just followed what The Beatles did.

Nah, nah, nah, the Stones started as Blues band and had their own influences i.e. American Blues and R&B - how much do you even know about the Stones? And really if anyone followed anyone it was The Beatles that followed The Shadows and lifted the Shad's sound, 'beat music,' wholesale in the beginning.

Yeah ok, the Stones didn't stick to one formula (the Blues) during the 60's and changed their sound along with every other band in the 60s, they weren't following The Beatles anticipating their every move. If anything they inspired each other, and their are some instances where the Stones were innovators. I don't understand why you want to make the Stones out to be lost puppies following The Beatles. I'll admit I like The Beatles but there is this mythologizing of The Beatles that I quite don't understand.

BastardofYoung · 07-06-2011, 03:52 PM

As I say, 8 great years for the Stones, 40+ awful ones. 1964-1972 is all you really need by The Stones.

I agree with Starry.

07-06-2011, 01:55 PM	#364 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I have it on good authority that many indian artists recorded sitars on albums years before the Beatles. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-06-2011, 01:58 PM	#365 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	An Indian pop or rock group recorded music with a sitar before The Beatles? __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

07-06-2011, 01:59 PM	#366 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Ravi Shankar was playing western music on the sitar as long ago as the early 50s __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

07-06-2011, 02:11 PM	#367 (permalink)
starrynight Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 937	I think this, as it was brought up, was more about whether The Rolling Stones were the first western group to use a sitar or not. The wikipedia page I linked comes from that perspective. Anyway I don't care who was the first, the fact is The Rolling Stones weren't and that they just followed what The Beatles did. __________________ non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

07-06-2011, 03:52 PM	#370 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	As I say, 8 great years for the Stones, 40+ awful ones. 1964-1972 is all you really need by The Stones. I agree with Starry. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.