The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (bass, hardcore, single, genre)

Urban Hat€monger ? · 08-18-2008, 01:36 PM

I don't think you get my point.

Sure this is a Beatles vs Stones thread but what bearing does The Beatles have on the quality of Stones records?

If you say the Stones have not made a good record for 36 years if I point out that they have I don't need to base how good they are on Beatles records.

lucifer_sam · 08-18-2008, 01:59 PM

But that wasn't within the context of my comment. You might be saying that they released something you would call "good" since then, and that's fair and well, but it doesn't really address what I was saying. I meant that in comparison to both the Stones' own earlier records and the Beatles' records, the Stones haven't released anything that compares favorably since 1972. Nothing they did after that could match up to Let It Bleed, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, etc. This was to support the fact that although they've been a band six times longer than the Beatles, they haven't had a comparatively good record in thirty-six years.

i.e. their longevity shouldn't be a factor.

prettyravegirl · 08-25-2008, 05:34 PM

uummm, Beatles!
I just like there sound WAY better...
I dont even like The Rolling Stones!

Folkie · 09-01-2008, 09:26 AM

I'd pick the beatles becasue they have defined generations. Although i like theyre later work as apose to their earlier

sweetleaf · 09-02-2008, 08:53 AM

This is the greatest poll ever... I used to ask people this question... then I decided I didn't want to fight any more, haha
Don't kill me I said The Beatles and no that doesn't mean that I don't love and appreciate The Rolling Stones.

WeeLittleHobbit · 09-02-2008, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sweetleaf

This is the greatest poll ever... I used to ask people this question... then I decided I didn't want to fight any more, haha
Don't kill me I said The Beatles and no that doesn't mean that I don't love and appreciate The Rolling Stones.

Exactly. Stones are great, but Beatles are in a different realm entirely.

almauro · 09-06-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lucifer_sam

.... the Stones haven't released anything that compares favorably since 1972. Nothing they did after that could match up to Let It Bleed, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, etc.
i.e. their longevity shouldn't be a factor.

ahhh... Some Girls...duh.

ddp · 09-07-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WeeLittleHobbit

Exactly. Stones are great, but Beatles are in a different realm entirely.

Yup. Nuff said.

5-Track · 10-04-2008, 11:58 PM

I end up listening to certain Stones records a lot more, and their influences are ultimately more in line with my own... Plus Keith is one of my three or four favorite guitar players, no matter what he's playing. The new movie (Shine A Light) is terrific with the exception of Jack White who, IMHO, should be embalmed alive and his ashes scattered in a Wal-Mart. (Well, really I can't wish him that much harm as a human being, just as an icon. As a human being I wish he would give it all up and become a retail wonk at a local natural food store in, say, Topeka)... Darryl Jones is the bass player Charlie and Keith have been needing for, what, 127 years now? Great band, even if their songwriting has been about crap since Goat's Head Soup (which I liked, and certain tunes since, but generally that was the last reasonable blast, again IMHO)

Favorites include "Let It Bleed," "Black And Blue," "Exile On Main Street," others...

OK, so Beatles... "White Album" is something I come back to again and again, likewise bits of "Let It Be" and "Abbey Road" and certain other tunes and bits. There's a vibe there that can be found nowhere else. It is important (to me) to drink it in from time to time.

I do listen to early Stones records - less now than I used to, but there's something about them that I like. Early Beatles has held up for me less well.

So - Stones overall, but Beatles very important for what they were/are.

~~Fyrenza~~ · 10-05-2008, 12:27 AM

beatles

their music is able to span genres seamlessly

they were way ahead of their time

they managed to stay away from heroin

their experimental music has inspired many genres

and the stones are some SKANKY looking and acting dudes

even though i haven't read all of the posts
i'm willing to bet this isn't the first time that was said!

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

08-18-2008, 01:36 PM	#541 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I don't think you get my point. Sure this is a Beatles vs Stones thread but what bearing does The Beatles have on the quality of Stones records? If you say the Stones have not made a good record for 36 years if I point out that they have I don't need to base how good they are on Beatles records. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

08-18-2008, 01:59 PM	#542 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	But that wasn't within the context of my comment. You might be saying that they released something you would call "good" since then, and that's fair and well, but it doesn't really address what I was saying. I meant that in comparison to both the Stones' own earlier records and the Beatles' records, the Stones haven't released anything that compares favorably since 1972. Nothing they did after that could match up to Let It Bleed, Aftermath, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, etc. This was to support the fact that although they've been a band six times longer than the Beatles, they haven't had a comparatively good record in thirty-six years. i.e. their longevity shouldn't be a factor. __________________ first.am Last edited by lucifer_sam; 08-19-2008 at 12:22 AM.

08-25-2008, 05:34 PM	#543 (permalink)
prettyravegirl Groupie Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 21	uummm, Beatles! I just like there sound WAY better... I dont even like The Rolling Stones! __________________ <3 Pretty Rave Girl

10-04-2008, 11:58 PM	#549 (permalink)
5-Track Music Addict Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Echo Park, Earth Posts: 197	I end up listening to certain Stones records a lot more, and their influences are ultimately more in line with my own... Plus Keith is one of my three or four favorite guitar players, no matter what he's playing. The new movie (Shine A Light) is terrific with the exception of Jack White who, IMHO, should be embalmed alive and his ashes scattered in a Wal-Mart. (Well, really I can't wish him that much harm as a human being, just as an icon. As a human being I wish he would give it all up and become a retail wonk at a local natural food store in, say, Topeka)... Darryl Jones is the bass player Charlie and Keith have been needing for, what, 127 years now? Great band, even if their songwriting has been about crap since Goat's Head Soup (which I liked, and certain tunes since, but generally that was the last reasonable blast, again IMHO) Favorites include "Let It Bleed," "Black And Blue," "Exile On Main Street," others... OK, so Beatles... "White Album" is something I come back to again and again, likewise bits of "Let It Be" and "Abbey Road" and certain other tunes and bits. There's a vibe there that can be found nowhere else. It is important (to me) to drink it in from time to time. I do listen to early Stones records - less now than I used to, but there's something about them that I like. Early Beatles has held up for me less well. So - Stones overall, but Beatles very important for what they were/are. __________________ music for your life: http://www.5-Track.com/NeptuneResearch

09-01-2008, 09:26 AM	#544 (permalink)
Folkie Groupie Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Kingston, On Posts: 33	I'd pick the beatles becasue they have defined generations. Although i like theyre later work as apose to their earlier

09-02-2008, 08:53 AM	#545 (permalink)
sweetleaf Groupie Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Never never land Posts: 39	This is the greatest poll ever... I used to ask people this question... then I decided I didn't want to fight any more, haha Don't kill me I said The Beatles and no that doesn't mean that I don't love and appreciate The Rolling Stones.

10-05-2008, 12:27 AM	#550 (permalink)
~~Fyrenza~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: high above the Republic of Texas Posts: 216	beatles their music is able to span genres seamlessly they were way ahead of their time they managed to stay away from heroin their experimental music has inspired many genres and the stones are some *SKANKY* looking and acting dudes even though i haven't read all of the posts i'm willing to bet this isn't the first time that was said!