Music Banter - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-roll-classic-rock-60s-rock/)

- - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-roll-classic-rock-60s-rock/4392-10-reasons-why-rolling-stones-were-better-than-beatles.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1081420)

Its a lame argument to say who did what first,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1081420)

most groups from that era as with other eras borrowed ideas of each other..........it was the sign of good taste and respect for your fellow artist. The Beatles just made a better job of borrowing these ideas from others and producing consistently the better music.

The issue The Beatles did a better job of borrowing ideas, it's they had the privilege of having ideas they borrowed as accredited as their own.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.c...u-know-psa.jpg
George Harrison in his whole career as a lead guitarist with The Beatles didn't approach nearly the same amount of notes played on a single Les Paul song.

The Beatles White Album has all kinds of variety, from folk, experimental, blues, rock, bubblegum pop, tin pan alley aend other styles as well. Which album by The Rolling Stones matched that?

And most people don't care if The Beatles did something first or not, they just care about the music they did.

It might have a lot of styles on it but half the songs are total garbage.

Can we get away from this stupid 'they did more styles so they must be better' argument.
It proves nothing of the sort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer (Post 1081430)

You know what Soldier? (I still laugh at your avatar!) for such blasphemy like that. Please enlighten me and explain exactly how the Beatles are a superior band? And we have all proved that the Beatles were not the first to use a "Sitar" by far.. Its already very well known that The Rolling Stones were the first ever original band that introduced the "Sitar" as an official instrument to be used by the band members, Keith Richards preferably!:thumb:

Well Mr. B-movie avatar yours is a good laugh as well! also, I don`t know why everybody is going on about who first used the sitar either! Firstly, The Beatles were better because their golden era of creativity between 65-69 is better than that of the Stones between 68-72. Secondly, they had three geniuses to a very lesser/debatable amount in the Rolling Stones. Thirdly, more bands I love take their influences from the Beatles than they do from the Stones and finally the Beatles never got embarrasing on stage like the Stones did in the 80`s! I could go on...........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 1081431)

So thats a no then

Try Little Feat.

I didn't ask for a Little Feat album

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 1081445)

I didn't ask for a Little Feat album

That`s the best your going to get and while we are on it, you didn`t suggest a Stones album either!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier (Post 1081444)

Try Little Feat.

Well..I like Little Feat! They have one of the best "Live" albums of all-time.

Well you could listen to Satanic Majesties but I imagine your Beatles myopia will put paid to that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan (Post 1081433)

Well it's part and parcel of "The Beatles created the music universe because they did everything first theory." I guess it's a "first" when The Beatles do it and they are tauted innovators but when another band can be credited for a "first" it's lame.

The issue The Beatles did a better job of borrowing ideas, it's they had the privilege of having ideas they borrowed as accredited as their own.

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.c...u-know-psa.jpg
George Harrison in his whole career as a lead guitarist with The Beatles didn't approach nearly the same amount of notes played on a single Les Paul song.

I`ve never sanctioned the Beatles did it first philosophy anyway, whether they did it first or not is actually quite irrelevant, its how they did it is where the argument lies!

I don`t why you`re comparing George Harrison as a guitar player to Les Paul, Harrison`s genius was in songcraft rather than playing the instrument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 1081448)

Well you could listen to Satanic Majesties but I imagine your Beatles myopia will put paid to that.

It might surprise you, but I`m not that much of a Beatles fan and never have been. Sure I own all the albums, but they`re not the sort of group I`m going to put on to pass some time or get me all excited etc, they just form an important part of my musical knowledge and demonstrate a level of musical excellence. Its just that I think they`re better than the Stones thats all, its really time you got over this now:laughing: