The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (blues, rock, ballad, album) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (blues, rock, ballad, album)
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 08-29-2006, 12:30 PM   #1 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowSurfer
Because the Stones had more line-ups than the Beatles, I think there's more variety to what The Stones can offer, be it Brian Jones era Stones, be it Mick Taylor era Stones or Ron Wood era Stones. You get a little more variety with the Stones.
Stones has more variety than The Beatles?

Holy mother of god I hope you're joking.
__________________
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 08-29-2006, 12:40 PM   #2 (permalink)
baj
Groupie
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: England
Posts: 8
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
Stones has more variety than The Beatles?

Holy mother of god I hope you're joking.
Agreed that was a shocking statement.
baj is offline  
Old 08-29-2006, 01:01 PM   #3 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
Stones has more variety than The Beatles?
Jesus , even a Stones groupie like me wouldn`t be daft enough to say that.

Having said that the Stones are a lot more diverse than Boo Boo is giving them credit for.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 09-01-2006, 05:04 PM   #4 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Side II of Band Of Gypsies
Posts: 310
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
Stones has more variety than The Beatles?

Holy mother of god I hope you're joking.
No, I'm not joking. The Stones have more ariety than The Beatles, yes, because with all the line-up changes the Stones went through, it brought more diversity and styles to the band than The Beatles.

Listen to the difference between Jones era Stones and Taylor era Stones.
A much greater gap in variety of sounds and styles than The Beatles, just because Harrison noodled a Sitar all over something.
ShadowSurfer is offline  
Old 09-01-2006, 05:06 PM   #5 (permalink)
Atchin' Akai
 
right-track's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Unamerica
Posts: 8,723
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowSurfer
A much greater gap in variety of sounds and styles than The Beatles, just because Harrison noodled a Sitar all over something.
Done by Jones first.
right-track is offline  
Old 09-01-2006, 05:26 PM   #6 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowSurfer
Listen to the difference between Jones era Stones and Taylor era Stones.
A much greater gap in variety of sounds and styles than The Beatles, just because Harrison noodled a Sitar all over something.
I`m not so sure thats true.

The Stones were always a blues based band who played pop/rock , maybe with a couple of blues/soul covers thrown in . They experimented with psychadelia on Satanic Majesties & Flowers but when it was obvious that didn`t really suit them they pretty much went back to what they knew with Beggers Banquet & Let it Bleed and give or take the odd song they`ve pretty much stayed with that.

I don`t see much progression between Jones leaving & Taylor joining , there wasn`t that much of a drastic change in sound between Jones last album Beggers Banquet & Let It Bleed which they both played on as opposed to Sticky Fingers & Exile which were all Taylor. In fact if anything they went back to their blues roots on exile.

I certainly don`t think it`s anywhere near the progession the Beatles made between Help through Rubber Soul , Revolver up to the White Album which was a phenominal change in direction, it almost sounds like a different band in some cases.

Oh and if you are wondering , I prefer the Stones to the Beatles.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 09-01-2006, 05:32 PM   #7 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Side II of Band Of Gypsies
Posts: 310
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger
I`m not so sure thats true.

The Stones were always a blues based band who played pop/rock , maybe with a couple of blues/soul covers thrown in . They experimented with psychadelia on Satanic Majesties & Flowers but when it was obvious that didn`t really suit them they pretty much went back to what they knew with Beggers Banquet & Let it Bleed and give or take the odd song they`ve pretty much stayed with that.

I don`t see much progression between Jones leaving & Taylor joining , there wasn`t that much of a drastic change in sound between Jones last album Beggers Banquet & Let It Bleed which they both played on as opposed to Sticky Fingers & Exile which were all Taylor. In fact if anything they went back to their blues roots on exile.

I certainly don`t think it`s anywhere near the progession the Beatles made between Help through Rubber Soul , Revolver up to the White Album which was a phenominal change in direction, it almost sounds like a different band in some cases.
You forgot Goats Head Soup.

All I'm saying is the fact The Stones had more people in their band results in more variety of sounds and apporaches.
ShadowSurfer is offline  
Closed Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Similar Threads


Terms & Privacy - Contact Us - Music Banter - Archive - Top

© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.