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

lisaa7 · 03-19-2008, 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Drugs were 'mainstream' even before the beatles , the teddy boys used to swallow uppers & shoot speed in the late 50s early 60s just as much as the punks did in the 70s. Yes you are right , the Beatles did sing about drugs , but they dressed them up with so many metaphores they ended up sounding like childrens nursary rhymes. Just listen to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds & then go listen to Sister Morphine & tell me which song has the more realistic portrayal of drugs.

They probly wrote them like that cus that was what there trip was like
and the beatles are the best band in the world they made music what it is
and if any one disagrees i dont care cus that my opinion not yours

~~ADELE~~ · 03-19-2008, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Drugs were 'mainstream' even before the beatles , the teddy boys used to swallow uppers & shoot speed in the late 50s early 60s just as much as the punks did in the 70s. Yes you are right , the Beatles did sing about drugs , but they dressed them up with so many metaphores they ended up sounding like childrens nursary rhymes. Just listen to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds & then go listen to Sister Morphine & tell me which song has the more realistic portrayal of drugs.

You ever done lsd Urban my ill informed foe?
Then you'd understand the childlike quality of the songs.
Lsd is not smack or morphine hence the difference in the lyrics Urban.
Urban your opinions are quaint but still your opinion.
The stones were more rock and the beatles were more melody.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 03-19-2008, 01:21 PM

I don't see how drug consumption has anything to do with a preference.
And not all LSD inspired songs have to be childlike.
Just ask 13th Floor Elevators & Hawkwind.

Alfred · 03-19-2008, 05:01 PM

The Beatles are way overrated. The Stones any day.

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 05:39 PM

the Stones came off the London blues scene, and despite being brilliant up until the early 70's they weren't doing anything new.

They even unsuccessfully tried to ape the pop innovations of Revolver and the Kinks with 1967's 'Between the Buttons', not to mention psychedelia with 'Their Satanic Majesties...'. Although I am a fan of the latter.

Don't get me wrong, they hit one of the all-time musical peak with the blues n' soul orgasm that was Exile on Main St, love them, but when you listen to the best Beatles records for the first time you are constantly surprised by each new direction they take.
And lest we forget the Stones had their first break with a Beatles cover.

joyboyo53 · 03-19-2008, 06:15 PM

since irrelevance is key in these rankings....

10 reasons why the beatles ARE better than the rolling stones

1 - john lennon is super cool

2 - so is paul & george

3 - who is prettier now? http://www.usounds.com/wp/wp-content...thrichards.jpg
http://www.facade.com/celebrity/phot..._McCartney.jpg

4 - the beatles stopped performing because they didnt need to advertise their albums (the initial reason for touring) any further and wanted to spend more time making studio albums that were revolutionary at the time .... the stones still try performing live, only to let down audiences who paid $200/ticket

5 -
beatles 1967 (drugs huh?)
http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_...SGT_PEPPER.jpg
rolling stones 1967 (what were you saying about faces on album covers?)
http://www.wetstudios.com/rental_boa...gs_flowers.jpg

6 - the beatles wrote less songs about rejection, sorrow, and all that bull**** because people actually liked them... so instead they wrote songs about love

7 - the beatles were able to release amazing music of MANY genres, while the stones rarely deviated from the same path

8 - the beatles actually know what a metaphor is.... and how to use them

9 - you an *******! (you asked for someone to insult you... thought i could lend a helping hand)

10 - what kind of tool would say he snorted his fathers ashes (to sound cool) and then have to admit he was lying (to regain popularity)....super cool!

ps i also like the stones.... just hope i helped further STUs point that none of your comments even made realistic points of arguement about which band is "better"

sleepy jack · 03-19-2008, 06:48 PM

Ten Reasons Why the Smiths Were Better than Both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.

1. Johnny Marr is actually the coolest guitar on the planet and he's played with The The and Modest Mouse.

2. Morrissey, the actual greatest frontman of all time.

3. Morrissey didn't need some slut on his arms to look cool or prove his manliness.

4. Did either of these pussy 60s bands ever sing a song like Handsome Devil? I think not.

5. The Smiths created that whole image of random people that weren't even them and slapping the name/album name on it later used by Belle & Sebastian. The Rolling Stones best album was some silly collage and the Beatles best album looked like some lame hippie gay orgy.

6. The Smiths never released a bad album and had the most timely break up ever. Neither band can lay claim to this.

7. Even dudes wanted to rip off Morrissey's shirt AND he played with flowers in his back pocket and still seemed so masculine. The Rolling Stones are like one giant wrinkle and the Beatles didn't even like touring.

8. Mike Joyce is a cooler name than Ringo Starr or Charlie Watts.

9. 9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus, Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss, Morrissey - Seasick, Yet Still Docked. What's this? Two really awful songs and one beautiful one? What's this? Morrissey's released SEVERAL good solo albums?

10. Appearance wise...well

&

Vs

Yeah I think I know who I'd rather go see even if Marr isn't wearing his super badass shades.

Comus · 03-19-2008, 06:53 PM

Original post pretty much sums it up perfectly in a nutshell.

Molecules · 03-19-2008, 07:02 PM

re crowquill^ I don't want to get into a puerile argument here but that's really thin. Why even compare them?
The Beatles and Stones had an influence that directly resulted in movements and groups in rock music, that themselves are responsible for the existence of just about everybody, let alone the Smiths. I love the Smiths but...what? Oh and Marr was a massive Beatles fan, just like any other brilliant guitarist in history

sleepy jack · 03-19-2008, 07:04 PM

My post wasn't that serious.

03-19-2008, 01:21 PM	#43 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I don't see how drug consumption has anything to do with a preference. And not all LSD inspired songs have to be childlike. Just ask 13th Floor Elevators & Hawkwind. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

03-19-2008, 05:01 PM	#44 (permalink)
Alfred one big soul Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Canada Posts: 5,096	The Beatles are way overrated. The Stones any day. __________________ LAST.FM / VINYL COLLECTION / RYM

03-19-2008, 05:39 PM	#45 (permalink)
Molecules daddy don't Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: the Wastes Posts: 2,577	the Stones came off the London blues scene, and despite being brilliant up until the early 70's they weren't doing anything new. They even unsuccessfully tried to ape the pop innovations of Revolver and the Kinks with 1967's 'Between the Buttons', not to mention psychedelia with 'Their Satanic Majesties...'. Although I am a fan of the latter. Don't get me wrong, they hit one of the all-time musical peak with the blues n' soul orgasm that was Exile on Main St, love them, but when you listen to the best Beatles records for the first time you are constantly surprised by each new direction they take. And lest we forget the Stones had their first break with a Beatles cover. __________________ [SIZE="1"]Eff em tumble her

03-19-2008, 07:02 PM	#49 (permalink)
Molecules daddy don't Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: the Wastes Posts: 2,577	re crowquill^ I don't want to get into a puerile argument here but that's really thin. Why even compare them? The Beatles and Stones had an influence that directly resulted in movements and groups in rock music, that themselves are responsible for the existence of just about everybody, let alone the Smiths. I love the Smiths but...what? Oh and Marr was a massive Beatles fan, just like any other brilliant guitarist in history __________________ [SIZE="1"]Eff em tumble her

03-19-2008, 06:15 PM	#46 (permalink)
joyboyo53 down the rabbit hole Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: the mountain called monkey Posts: 764	since irrelevance is key in these rankings.... 10 reasons why the beatles ARE better than the rolling stones 1 - john lennon is super cool 2 - so is paul & george 3 - who is prettier now? http://www.usounds.com/wp/wp-content...thrichards.jpg http://www.facade.com/celebrity/phot..._McCartney.jpg 4 - the beatles stopped performing because they didnt need to advertise their albums (the initial reason for touring) any further and wanted to spend more time making studio albums that were revolutionary at the time .... the stones still try performing live, only to let down audiences who paid $200/ticket 5 - beatles 1967 (drugs huh?) http://www.webwiseforradio.com/site_...SGT_PEPPER.jpg rolling stones 1967 (what were you saying about faces on album covers?) http://www.wetstudios.com/rental_boa...gs_flowers.jpg 6 - the beatles wrote less songs about rejection, sorrow, and all that bull** because people actually liked them... so instead they wrote songs about love 7 - the beatles were able to release amazing music of MANY genres, while the stones rarely deviated from the same path 8 - the beatles actually know what a metaphor is.... and how to use them 9 - you an *****! (you asked for someone to insult you... thought i could lend a helping hand) 10 - what kind of tool would say he snorted his fathers ashes (to sound cool) and then have to admit he was lying (to regain popularity)....super cool! ps i also like the stones.... just hope i helped further STUs point that none of your comments even made realistic points of arguement about which band is "better"