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

boo boo · 01-16-2007, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

It's not cohesive. Therefore, although pretty much all of the songs are very good, I don't think it's so great of an album. The tracks could have been in a completely different order and the effect would be the same, therefore structurally, it's not really a piece of art like the others. It seems like the songs were recorded and compiled without any thought as to assembling songs that worked well together as a unit. That's not terribly surprising, since the album was only just starting to take off as a distinctive statement of the artist's style and intent, rather than a collection of songs being released on one disc when Experienced came out. Jimi caught on to the trend pretty quickly anyway.

An example of my point: Exile on Main Street is often considered the Stones best album, but most would agree it doesn't have any individual songs that stand equal to "Sympathy for the Devil" or "Gimme Shelter". The level of an album's quality should be measured in how well all of the songs fit together.

I like how this thread is suddenly taking a new direction.

WTF, the songs in AYE? fit together perfectly, and even if they didn't, putting a little diversity in a album never hurts anybody.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Man

The Beatles never sold out. They made kick-butt albums like Abbey Road right up to the end.

They did sell out, but unlike the Stones, they had the sense to sell out on their very first album, they were always a mainstream band, even during their experimental period.

So unlike the Stones, The Beatles never lost any credibility during the span of their career, unless you count the whole "more popular than Jesus Christ" thing.

Another thing is that The Beatles were wise enough to quit during their prime, as opposed to The Rolling Stones, who should have quit over 40 f*cking years ago.

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

They did sell out, but unlike the Stones, they had the sense to sell out on their very first album, they were always a mainstream band, even during their experimental period.

So unlike the Stones, The Beatles never lost any credibility during the span of their career, unless you count the whole "more popular than Jesus Christ" thing.

Another thing is that The Beatles were wise enough to quit during their prime, as opposed to The Rolling Stones, who should have quit over 40 f*cking years ago.

No, the Beatles didn't sell out.

"Selling out" is something a band or musician does when, for example, they start and gain fame as a hard rock band, then turn to light pop later in their careers. They betray their roots.

The Beatles NEVER betrayed their roots. If the Beatles were "always" a mainstream pop band from start to finish as you claim, then by your own definition they NEVER sold out.

And I think most people here would disagree that the Stones should've quit over 40 years ago. Because that means many of their very best 60's recordings, BEFORE they sold out, would've never happened. I would agree with you if you had said they should've quit 30 years ago.

I'm not here to bash the Stones. I'm a huge fan of most of their 60's to mid-70's recordings. But there's no denying they sold out big time when they went disco in 1978. Just like there's no denying they never reached the same heights as the Beatles.

Rainard Jalen · 01-16-2007, 10:18 AM

I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

You've just perfectly described the Rolling Stones for about the last 30 years.

The Beatles' creative process was one of the most sophisticated in recording industry history, and they continued to turn out top quality albums right up to the end with "Abbey Road".

My point stands---the Beatles NEVER sold out. The Stones sold out big time with disco crap like "Miss You".

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-16-2007, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Music Man

My point stands---the Beatles NEVER sold out. The Stones sold out big time with disco crap like "Miss You".

If we`re talking about a bands nadir here Yellow Submarine & Octopus Garden take some beating.

Music Man · 01-16-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

If we`re talking about a bands nadir here Yellow Submarine & Octopus Garden take some beating.

Either of those songs beats the hell out of disco crap like "Miss You".

Yellow Sub was #1 in Britain for four consecutive weeks, and was the title track for their immensely popular movie of the same name.

Bottom line---the Stones sold out, the Beatles didn't.

Strummer521 · 01-17-2007, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

If we`re talking about a bands nadir here Yellow Submarine & Octopus Garden take some beating.

They're essentially children's songs, and damn classic ones at that. Besides anything that Ringo sang (while with the Beatles) is a fun little novelty. I find his voice was pleasant at that time because it was so unassuming.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-17-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

They're essentially children's songs, and damn classic ones at that.

That excuse didn`t wash with me when McCartney released The Frog Chorus and i`m not buying it now.

Music Man · 01-19-2007, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

They're essentially children's songs, and damn classic ones at that. Besides anything that Ringo sang (while with the Beatles) is a fun little novelty. I find his voice was pleasant at that time because it was so unassuming.

Actually, both were drug songs disguised as songs for youngsters.

Kind of like "Puff the Magic Dragon".

McCartney will now deny it for politically correct purposes, but they were both drug songs.

Music Man · 01-19-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.

In that case, the Stones are nothing but two dollar whores.

Their 1978 album "Some Girls", featured disco songs like "Miss You" (and other crap-pop songs)---which were specifically written and recorded to capitalize on the disco craze that swept the USA in the 70's.

The Stones fanboys can deny it until their faces turn blue---but the hard fact remains that the Stones sold out big time. The Beatles never did.

The Stones over about the last thirty years are the classic example of musical whoredom at its worst.

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

01-16-2007, 10:18 AM	#3 (permalink)
Rainard Jalen Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 2,221	I don't think selling out necessarily indicates betraying your roots. For me, "selling out" in its real, unadulterated sense is the practise of making a record simply to capitalize on your popularity, with no regard for the creative process or quality of the material.