10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (lyrics, pop)

~~ADELE~~ · 03-23-2008, 12:56 PM

Yeah thats true.
You could say not going on the road aint rock n roll though.
I suppose I'd be repeating myself saying that the stones were more edgy and loose and corrupt then the beatles.
The earlier point about the beatles been nursury rhyme like is true too I think.
I mean, the stones sang about sex and drugs and rock n roll.
It really is just taste. I once read an article that said if the stones had all died in a plane crash around 69 they'd be hailed forever as the best rock n roll band ever full stop. The Beatles split did mean they didn't screw up or make crap songs etc.
I also read John wanted to do rock n roll numbers that were quick and paul wanted ballads and george just wanted to get a few songs on the albums.
I can't knock the beatles because like I said when you are at school learning guitar you watch the beatles and their films and you maybe have a dobeee for the first time it all seems so damn great listening to their early songs then their later songs and it meshes with childlike imagery and all seems so bloody brilliant. I don't know about you but we'd sing yellow submarine and yesterday in assembly but not tumbling dice so as kids we saw the beatles as like part of our lives and learning. I remember when I was 5 and john was shot and I didn't know who he was but I rember feeling like he was jesus or something when i'd see Imagine on tele he looked so spiritual and people saying he was dead as I didn't know young people died. That added to the beatles whole historic influence. I think kids today and tommorow will all go through that over and again. Then as you leave school and get into relationships (or try to) you start liking the stones as you are free and they sound sexy and liberating like the pistols and clash etc. Then after too much liberation you get into the floyd and reflect on it all.
I suppose that is a rock n roll template that all young aspiring bands go through!!!
So I wouldn't then get older and knock the beatles for been what they were.
John Lennon's last album was an attempt to get back to good old rock n roll.
I suppose also the beatles can be studenty and acid whereas the stones appeal to blue collar workers like my dad with honky tonk woman etc.
But the beatles are like shakespeare to young blokes picking up a guitar at school and been extremely positive.
etc etc etc!!!

03-23-2008, 12:56 PM	#10 (permalink)
~~ADELE~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: London Posts: 466	Yeah thats true. You could say not going on the road aint rock n roll though. I suppose I'd be repeating myself saying that the stones were more edgy and loose and corrupt then the beatles. The earlier point about the beatles been nursury rhyme like is true too I think. I mean, the stones sang about sex and drugs and rock n roll. It really is just taste. I once read an article that said if the stones had all died in a plane crash around 69 they'd be hailed forever as the best rock n roll band ever full stop. The Beatles split did mean they didn't screw up or make crap songs etc. I also read John wanted to do rock n roll numbers that were quick and paul wanted ballads and george just wanted to get a few songs on the albums. I can't knock the beatles because like I said when you are at school learning guitar you watch the beatles and their films and you maybe have a dobeee for the first time it all seems so damn great listening to their early songs then their later songs and it meshes with childlike imagery and all seems so bloody brilliant. I don't know about you but we'd sing yellow submarine and yesterday in assembly but not tumbling dice so as kids we saw the beatles as like part of our lives and learning. I remember when I was 5 and john was shot and I didn't know who he was but I rember feeling like he was jesus or something when i'd see Imagine on tele he looked so spiritual and people saying he was dead as I didn't know young people died. That added to the beatles whole historic influence. I think kids today and tommorow will all go through that over and again. Then as you leave school and get into relationships (or try to) you start liking the stones as you are free and they sound sexy and liberating like the pistols and clash etc. Then after too much liberation you get into the floyd and reflect on it all. I suppose that is a rock n roll template that all young aspiring bands go through!!! So I wouldn't then get older and knock the beatles for been what they were. John Lennon's last album was an attempt to get back to good old rock n roll. I suppose also the beatles can be studenty and acid whereas the stones appeal to blue collar workers like my dad with honky tonk woman etc. But the beatles are like shakespeare to young blokes picking up a guitar at school and been extremely positive. etc etc etc!!! Last edited by ADELE; 03-23-2008 at 01:03 PM.