10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (jazz, metal)

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 07:07 PM

^(as long as he had his acne cream)

Alfred · 03-19-2008, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

...and the Beatles best album looked like some lame hippie gay orgy.

I lol'd.

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 07:19 PM

this thread demonstrates that appreciation of the Beatles is something that comes with maturity, musical maturity at least... If you still have a one-dimensional viewpoint about a band like that you just don't know alot - it's like dismissing the Smiths as 'depressing music for suicide cases'!

Fair enough if you have an aesthetic bone to pick - they're too twee or whatever (by no means were they always that either) - just read some books and listen to some albums before you make an idiot out of yourself

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-19-2008, 07:25 PM

I think you have to realise 2 things when taking this thread in account.

First that it's over 2 years old.
Second that at the time it was made it seemed like everytime the Beatles were mentioned it was at the expense of the Stones , and everytime you mentioned something you like about the Stones you'd get Beatles fans saying 'oh but the Beatles were better blah blah blah'. and not giving the Stones credit for a single thing.
This was my way of poking fun at these people.

sleepy jack · 03-19-2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molecules

this thread demonstrates that appreciation of the Beatles is something that comes with maturity, musical maturity at least... If you still have a one-dimensional viewpoint about a band like that you just don't know alot - it's like dismissing the Smiths as 'depressing music for suicide cases'!

Fair enough if you have an aesthetic bone to pick - they're too twee or whatever (by no means were they always that either) - just read some books and listen to some albums before you make an idiot out of yourself

The Beatles are actually one of my favorite bands.

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 07:28 PM

i have a fire in my belly when it comes to the Beatles, we're talking fundamentals of my existence type stuff. unfortunately I am one of 'those people', musthavethelastword!

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crowquill

The Beatles are actually one of my favorite bands.

this is good. let us never speak of this again. i'm gonna go and post something about jazz-funk now

Comus · 03-19-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molecules

this thread demonstrates that appreciation of the Beatles is something that comes with maturity, musical maturity at least.

What.

Listening to pop =/= musical maturity

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 10:47 PM

re comus- it's one thing to listen to music, another to appreciate it, I'm not a musician but it adds another level to try to listen as such.
they were the first band to innovate with the popular music medium, hell what would the sixties have been like without them? would people have still been listening to Elvis and doo wop? they proved that rock n' roll could encompass a limitless variety of harmonies and sounds, they were the first to use jazz chords in pop music (do we associate the term 'pop' with anything before the hysteria of Beatlemania?) and the changes in their compositions are, compared to rock up to that point, mental.

Sure their achievements have since been surpassed, and I'm not saying innovation is exclusive property of the Beatles (look at Frank Zappa or 'Pet Sounds') - but their indelible mark on pop/rock/whatever is undeniable. It had to start somewhere, and if they hadn't done it somebody else would, just probably not the Stones (jokes).
And their influence on experimentation in the studio and the development of multi-track recording, bringing sound collage to the masses is very well documented.
Like I said just read some books and listen to some records, I've debated this enough for a lifetime!
and forgive the grammar it's about 3 in the morning where i am and this is the most pointless thing i've ever done

Rainard Jalen · 03-20-2008, 03:43 AM

The original post was facetious anyway, but yeah, to others who have used the thread as a way of casting aspersions on the Beatles... clearly the bands are not comparable because they are of different genres. In fact, nobody should attack a band for being of a genre they don't like or listen to in the first place. It's like, when I hear some extreme Death Metal fans talk trash about Radiohead and say things like "get some talent", as if "talent" depends upon how raw and heavy your sound is. In a nutshell, if somebody doesn't even like the genre that a particular band/artist play, that's fine, but then they have no right to criticize the band for belonging to that genre. You only criticize a band for embodying a genre badly.

1: If somebody doesn't like sugary r&b inspired pop, they should shut up about the early Merseybeat Beatles stuff.
2: If somebody doesn't like melodious brightly harmonized pop/rock'n'roll, they should shut up about all of the Beatles stuff.
3: In fact, if somebody doesn't really like pop music at all, (which is 9/10 times the case with Beatles hatas), they should shut up about all pop music and leave it to us who actually enjoy it. God, there's nothing more irritating than an extreme diehard hate-all-else proggy or metalhead feeling they're in a position to comment on the Beatles.
4: If you don't like folk, you're in no position to comment on Nick Drake.
5: If you don't like rap, you're in no position to ridicule the skills of Biggie Smalls.
6: If you don't like classical, = no right to comment on Mozart.

If on the other hand somebody genuinely likes music of that description, they have a right to criticize as much as they like. I'll respect their view unreservedly.

03-19-2008, 07:07 PM	#51 (permalink)
Molecules daddy don't Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: the Wastes Posts: 2,577	^(as long as he had his acne cream) __________________ [SIZE="1"]Eff em tumble her

03-19-2008, 07:19 PM	#53 (permalink)
Molecules daddy don't Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: the Wastes Posts: 2,577	this thread demonstrates that appreciation of the Beatles is something that comes with maturity, musical maturity at least... If you still have a one-dimensional viewpoint about a band like that you just don't know alot - it's like dismissing the Smiths as 'depressing music for suicide cases'! Fair enough if you have an aesthetic bone to pick - they're too twee or whatever (by no means were they always that either) - just read some books and listen to some albums before you make an idiot out of yourself __________________ [SIZE="1"]Eff em tumble her

03-19-2008, 07:25 PM	#54 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I think you have to realise 2 things when taking this thread in account. First that it's over 2 years old. Second that at the time it was made it seemed like everytime the Beatles were mentioned it was at the expense of the Stones , and everytime you mentioned something you like about the Stones you'd get Beatles fans saying 'oh but the Beatles were better blah blah blah'. and not giving the Stones credit for a single thing. This was my way of poking fun at these people. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

03-19-2008, 07:28 PM	#56 (permalink)
Molecules daddy don't Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: the Wastes Posts: 2,577	i have a fire in my belly when it comes to the Beatles, we're talking fundamentals of my existence type stuff. unfortunately I am one of 'those people', musthavethelastword! __________________ [SIZE="1"]Eff em tumble her

03-19-2008, 10:47 PM	#59 (permalink)
Molecules daddy don't Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: the Wastes Posts: 2,577	re comus- it's one thing to listen to music, another to appreciate it, I'm not a musician but it adds another level to try to listen as such. they were the first band to innovate with the popular music medium, hell what would the sixties have been like without them? would people have still been listening to Elvis and doo wop? they proved that rock n' roll could encompass a limitless variety of harmonies and sounds, they were the first to use jazz chords in pop music (do we associate the term 'pop' with anything before the hysteria of Beatlemania?) and the changes in their compositions are, compared to rock up to that point, mental. Sure their achievements have since been surpassed, and I'm not saying innovation is exclusive property of the Beatles (look at Frank Zappa or 'Pet Sounds') - but their indelible mark on pop/rock/whatever is undeniable. It had to start somewhere, and if they hadn't done it somebody else would, just probably not the Stones (jokes). And their influence on experimentation in the studio and the development of multi-track recording, bringing sound collage to the masses is very well documented. Like I said just read some books and listen to some records, I've debated this enough for a lifetime! and forgive the grammar it's about 3 in the morning where i am and this is the most pointless thing i've ever done __________________ [SIZE="1"]Eff em tumble her

03-20-2008, 03:43 AM	#60 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,221	The original post was facetious anyway, but yeah, to others who have used the thread as a way of casting aspersions on the Beatles... clearly the bands are not comparable because they are of different genres. In fact, nobody should attack a band for being of a genre they don't like or listen to in the first place. It's like, when I hear some extreme Death Metal fans talk trash about Radiohead and say things like "get some talent", as if "talent" depends upon how raw and heavy your sound is. In a nutshell, if somebody doesn't even like the genre that a particular band/artist play, that's fine, but then they have no right to criticize the band for belonging to that genre. You only criticize a band for embodying a genre badly. 1: If somebody doesn't like sugary r&b inspired pop, they should shut up about the early Merseybeat Beatles stuff. 2: If somebody doesn't like melodious brightly harmonized pop/rock'n'roll, they should shut up about all of the Beatles stuff. 3: In fact, if somebody doesn't really like pop music at all, (which is 9/10 times the case with Beatles hatas), they should shut up about all pop music and leave it to us who actually enjoy it. God, there's nothing more irritating than an extreme diehard hate-all-else proggy or metalhead feeling they're in a position to comment on the Beatles. 4: If you don't like folk, you're in no position to comment on Nick Drake. 5: If you don't like rap, you're in no position to ridicule the skills of Biggie Smalls. 6: If you don't like classical, = no right to comment on Mozart. If on the other hand somebody genuinely likes music of that description, they have a right to criticize as much as they like. I'll respect their view unreservedly. Last edited by Rainard Jalen; 03-20-2008 at 03:53 AM.