Double X

Yeah sorry, I did not mean to insult you or anything.

lucifer_sam

I think Paul was a good bassist and a great songwriter. But I think a distinction should be made between his songwriting abilities and bass playing abilities.

__________________
first.am

ddp

What??

__________________
Deep Down Productions
Blog: Mikeblog
Rainbow Songs Foundation

Rainard Jalen

I can't imagine he was serious with that comment, but it is possible to argue, tentatively, that the Stones were on the whole more innovative.

Urban Hat€monger ?

I've always found it funny that the Stones need to be innovative or diverse considering they basically based in roots music.

It's a bit like complaining that Bob Dylan has never made a techno album.

__________________

The Monkey

The Rolling Stones made a lot of great music, but for me, most of that can be found on Forty Licks (the greatest hits album). When listen to their studio albums there really doesn't seem to be much good stuff except what fitted on Forty Licks, there are so many fillers.

On the Beatles' albums, on the other hand, the fillers are limited to a few per record (and none on Revolver and Sgt. Pepper).

Rainard Jalen

This isn't true at all. The Stones' best albums are pretty much great through and through. Go listen to Aftermath, same year as Revolver.

Aside from that, as hard rock pioneers they actually turn out to have been really innovative and cutting edge in addition to being great songwriters. And who can listen to Aftermath etc. and claim they are not diverse or adventurous? People should check out songs like the long jam, "Goin' Home", among many others.

The Monkey

I don't know about Aftermath, but the three albums I have (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Exile on Main Street) leaves much to be wanted, in comparison to The Beatles' albums.

thedaytripper

The beatles were far better than the rolling stones. no questions asked. they went from pop icons, who delivered awesome british tone to us, to psychedelic crooners who increased our hope during vietnam, to poetic rock legends. George Harrison (R.I.P.) was silent and had no ego while completely owning keith richards on guitar. Ringo had elegant and followable drum beats, Paul McCartney was and is one of the greatest musicians ever, and R.I.P. John who was incredible on the mic, the guitar, piano, and the grindstone. The stones are great, no doubt, but they cannot compare to the beatles

Rainard Jalen

What a load of needless triffling hyperbole.

Um, the hell? Good grief. If you can prove that Harrison was even half as dexterous on guitar as Richards, I'll be impressed. Barring that, your statement has absolutely no justification whatsover. Harrison of the 60s was merely a competent player: unpretentious and unspectacular. Hell, he wasn't even confident enough in his skills (or lack thereof) to play the solo his own best piece.

songwriters*,

He was a great vocalist. He was not a good instrumentalist in any sense of the word and anybody who claims so is an utter idiot.

Plainly you are not a Rolling Stones fan of any sort, so it's better that you don't start talking about how they do or do not compare to your favourite band.