Music Man

The problem is, the Stones didn't stay dangerous long. After the 60's, they faded fast. Brian Jones died in 1969, and that's about the time they lost their edge.

Very few of their songs after 1971 impressed me much. After they released the heavily disco influenced "Miss You" in 1978, I pretty much gave up on them and never looked back.

The compilation "Hot Rocks 1964-1971" is their most essential album release. If they had included the single "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?" on "Hot Rocks"---it would've been nearly perfect.

The Stones started out strong, then went lame. Some of the Beatles' early stuff was just sugary pop, but they only got better as time went on.

__________________
"Paranoid is just like an anchor. It really secures everything about the metal movement in one record. It's all there: the riffs, the vocal performance of Ozzy, the song titles, what the lyrics are about. It's just a classic defining moment."

--Rob Halford of Judas Priest

dojo

Stones. I dislike Beatles, but I did find some nice Rolling Stones songs

__________________
The Blog

Urban Hat€monger ?

I disagree they lost their edge in 69 , after all they did release Let It Bleed , Sticky Fingers , Get Yer Ya Yas Out & Exile On Main Street In that time.

Plus what were the Beatles up to in the 70s? , Paul McCartney in Wings , one of the worst bands ever to walk the face of the earth , Ringo was busy making crap solo albums and appearing on every novelty album going.Harrison`s solo stuff was very hit & miss , mostly miss and people forget that Lennon`s career was on the slide from the mid 70s onwards.

Compared to some of the rubbish the ex Beatles knocked out in the 70s the Stones stuff stands up pretty well.

__________________

Music Man

I clearly stated "about" that time, and I specifically mentioned the year 1971.

As for what the ex-Beatles were doing as solo acts in the 1970's as compared to the Stones as a group, is absolutely irrelevant. You're making an apples and oranges comparison.

With well over one BILLION records sold worldwide, the Beatles completely blow away the Stones. The Stones have had over 36 years to try and catch up, but STILL can't come even remotely close in record sales.

As of 2007, the Beatles compilation album "1" is the largest selling album of the 21st century, in ANY genre of music.

The Stones have always been and will always be a distant second to the Beatles, and I say that as an old Stones fan who owns MANY of their recordings.

__________________
"Paranoid is just like an anchor. It really secures everything about the metal movement in one record. It's all there: the riffs, the vocal performance of Ozzy, the song titles, what the lyrics are about. It's just a classic defining moment."

--Rob Halford of Judas Priest

boo boo

We're comparing The Stones to The Beatles, not The Stones to The Beatles solo careers.


Remember that.

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

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

The Unfan

Albums sells does not equal musical quality. This point is invalid.

I do like The Beatles' more experimental material over anything The Rolling Stones did.

Urban Hat€monger ?

I just think it`s unfair to claim the Beatles are better than the Stones because the Stones lost in it the 70s when the Beatles couldn`t even hold it together in that decade .So if we are comparing decades why not mention what they did elsewhere.

__________________

TheBig3

Yes, and selling records just means theya ppeal to a broader audience, but that doesn't mean its good. McDonalds has serrved over a billion customers world wide and their food will kill you. Its usually the lowest common denominator that sells the most.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

boo boo

Perhaps because they broke up, you're comparing a bands 70s material to a band that wasn't even together anymore during the 70s, so whos really being unfair here?

And Music Man, you're not really helping the Beatlemaniacs with their cause, why bring up record sales like it proves The Beatles are better?... Its not a very good case, and its a waste of everyones time. Besides there are thousands of valid reasons why The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones, use those.

And Big3, a good deal of The Beatles later material was pretty ahead of their time, can you really imagine a song like Tommorrow Never Knows being released in 1966?

And implying that The Beatles are the "lowest common denominator" is just plain retarded.

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

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

TheBig3

Sir i implied nothing. I stated. And its not retarded. I still assert that the Beatles never wrote anything quite like Gimmie Shelter or Sympathy for the Devil.

__________________
I've moved to a new address