The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (single, album, hendrix, guitarist) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles
Stones 1,000,000,059 99.90%
Beatles 1,000,073 0.10%
Voters: 1001000132. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-14-2007, 04:18 PM   #421 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

ibility.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Old 01-14-2007, 04:36 PM   #422 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
Default

I'll just assume you get this and for anyone else who did not, I'll explain myself.

The idea that the bealtes changed the way music was done and is still having an impact is so commonly known to any music fan its disgusting. While I'm not saying it was copy and pasted from a web site, palgerised from a music journal or stolen from your neighborhood snarky indie music critic, it could have been and everyone knows it could have been. Rather than address this in such a manner, I decided to point out the absurdity of writing such things on a music message board where people come to dicuss music. We know this, why point it out?

My second reason for addressing the all too common argument is that, since the Stones aren't given the same type of talking points in every peice of print dedicated to them (presumably because their still together, and that Keith, Mick and Charlie havn't died yet), no one knows arguments for the Stones well enough to defend them. So what you have here (and im refering to Urban here, not myself) is a stones fan who knows what he's tlaking about and making valid points based on a knowledge of a catalouge while the presumed "Beatles fan" is just saying what has been said to him.

I decided to not be the anal retentive den mother I usually am, apparently the sarcastic method isn't appreciated either.

Theres your cred, hippie.
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline  
Old 01-14-2007, 05:19 PM   #423 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

I'm not a Hippie, I'm a right leaning Libertarian.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Old 01-14-2007, 07:43 PM   #424 (permalink)
Pepper Emergency!
 
Strummer521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog View Post
My second reason for addressing the all too common argument is that, since the Stones aren't given the same type of talking points in every peice of print dedicated to them (presumably because their still together, and that Keith, Mick and Charlie havn't died yet), no one knows arguments for the Stones well enough to defend them. So what you have here (and im refering to Urban here, not myself) is a stones fan who knows what he's tlaking about and making valid points based on a knowledge of a catalouge while the presumed "Beatles fan" is just saying what has been said to him.
Have you considered the fact that there may not be as many arguments possible in favor of the Stones? It's kind of hard to make original points about the Beatles when they've been praised so much in every possible way. But does that mean it's better to argue in favor of the Stones just because it's not as common? That would be just as blind as unquestioningly following the critics. It seems that there are just more forums members here that favor the Beatles. As far as knowledge of catalogue...I could easily slip into a song for song analysis between the two bands, and I'm sure many others around here could as well. But in a argument that's almost too tired to be interesting...who wants to take the time?

One point I do want to make though...Even though the Stones have had longevity that dwarfs the Beatles short span of existence, both bands have produced roughly the same amount of great albums.

The Stones: Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street

The Beatles: Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The White Album, Abbey Road

I'd be willing to drop Sgt. Pepper's from the Beatles' list, since I find it massively overrated. It's not even that much of a concept album (if you think about it), and half of the songs sound like dull filler to me (that could be chalked up sheerly to personal preference though). I find their real opus to be Abbey Road, though my personal favorite is Rubber Soul.
I have to admit that I think the Stones perfected being epic within a single song without sounding indulgent and pompous ("Sympathy For The Devil" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want"), a feat that few bands have managed since. Plus they released the perfect bar-band album with Exile which they recorded in a french villa! That's just nuts. I remember coming home from the library and putting the borrowed copy of Beggar's Banquet on the stereo, sitting down and making the quick transition from puzzlement to sheer bliss. That was my discovery of classic rock, and that was the moment from which I approached music with a completely new mentality. Thinking: This is always going to be important to me.

Damn...I guess this argument is a closer call for me than I thought at first. Curse you Big3... I no longer know where I stand.
Strummer521 is offline  
Old 01-15-2007, 06:16 AM   #425 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
Default

Hey welcome to MusicBanter, I'm the forum asshole, arguing for no reason at all is really my forte. And spelling badly, I do that well also.

At this point, I don't care who you vote for as long as you give the stones a fair shot. And I've thought about the possibility that the stones might not have as much to celebrate about but quickly dismissed it. Just because the Stones played music that had already been invented doesn't mean its easy to do, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone can do it, or do it without trying to sound ridiculous or pompous.

They won't be given credit until one of the big ones dies, until then we're getting a "who's better, Hendrix or Clapton", where one's dead and always the winner and the other one lived and made a bunch of suck ass records that makes him "subpar."
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline  
Old 01-15-2007, 07:54 AM   #426 (permalink)
ddp
Music Addict
 
ddp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 223
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog View Post
And spelling badly, I do that well also.
I can't help you with all your problems but download firefox 2 and then your spelling will be fixed.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/

It has a built in dictionary!!
ddp is offline  
Old 01-15-2007, 08:13 AM   #427 (permalink)
Groupie
 
TRUSTnSEVENDUST's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Jersey
Posts: 19
Default

Defintly the Beatles, cus they set the stage for so many bands that are out there, and that were. I was never a fan of the stones, i dont have nething against them, it wus just i never really got into them for some reason. The Beatles were original and very unique for their time.
TRUSTnSEVENDUST is offline  
Old 01-15-2007, 10:45 AM   #428 (permalink)
Pepper Emergency!
 
Strummer521's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 493
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog View Post
Hey welcome to MusicBanter, I'm the forum asshole, arguing for no reason at all is really my forte. And spelling badly, I do that well also.

At this point, I don't care who you vote for as long as you give the stones a fair shot. And I've thought about the possibility that the stones might not have as much to celebrate about but quickly dismissed it. Just because the Stones played music that had already been invented doesn't mean its easy to do, and it certainly doesn't mean that anyone can do it, or do it without trying to sound ridiculous or pompous.

They won't be given credit until one of the big ones dies, until then we're getting a "who's better, Hendrix or Clapton", where one's dead and always the winner and the other one lived and made a bunch of suck ass records that makes him "subpar."
Well, to be fair... Hendrix's catalogue was never tarnished because he made so few records and most were excellent pieces of highly structured art. Save Are You Experienced?, which was good, but really feels more like a singles collection than a cohesive album. He managed a masterful blend of blues, funk, psychadelia and occasionally R&B and forged one of the most truly unique and distinctive styles on his instrument in the realm of Rock Music (Those slick double hammer-ons are undeniably cool). First Rays Of The New Rising Sun only showed more potential for further growth and change.
Clapton came in on the ground floor of blues-rock through the Yardbirds and Cream, but then went on to sterilize the blues and prostitue it by making it into soft radio rock. He has the chops, but in his performances, all the grit is gone. Without the down-home back-porch feel it's just not the same. I know it might be kind of odd to argue against good production values, but I think that that time-honored genre deserves more respect. He did make the Wah pedal cool with "Tales of Brave Ulysses" and also sort of spawned hard rock with that band (which was cream)... but I think his solo career was so weak that I can't give him too much praise. I didn't mind the Unlpugged album though.
I think what it comes down to, is the fact that Jimi has enough soul to move mountains (and chop them down with the back of his hand) while Clapton's a little too clean and whitebread.
Strummer521 is offline  
Old 01-15-2007, 03:06 PM   #429 (permalink)
Alan
 
Kurt_Cobain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: In bed, with Cheryl Tweedy
Posts: 275
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521 View Post
while Clapton's a little too clean and whitebread.
Clapton's life was far from clean, and led just as interesting a life, if not more so than Jimi.
I still think its strange to compare these two bands, it's like comparing black and white, they're so different. And I still prefer the Stones, they have that bit more edge. And their guitarists were better.
Kurt_Cobain is offline  
Old 01-15-2007, 03:45 PM   #430 (permalink)
Let it drip
 
Sneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,430
Default

on the contrary, i believe black and white have quite similiar vocal styles
Sneer is offline  
Closed Thread


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.