The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (singer, blues, country, funk)

The_Juke · 01-24-2006, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Hmmm

I know which one i`d rather listen to

Paul puts on a pretty good show. So do the Stones. I like them both as well as Paul McCartney, The Wings and Lennon. I didn't care for Ringo much....

jibber · 01-24-2006, 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seltzer

Mmm... Paul's a good bassist though.

agreed, look at the tabs to some of the riffs he played. Some of them are amazingly technical, and others are just beautiful for their simplicity. very talented man right there.

The_Juke · 01-24-2006, 05:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibber

agreed, look at the tabs to some of the riffs he played. Some of them are amazingly technical, and others are just beautiful for their simplicity. very talented man right there.

Something is a kick ass Bass line and Drive my car is fun..

boo boo · 01-24-2006, 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Juke

You have been hitting the pipe!

Both bands have a difinative sound but the Beatles played everything from cheezy pop, phycadelic/trip, guitar Rock, and blues.

Let's see.... Yellow Submarine, Drive My Car, Revolution, Somthing, Help, Rocky Raccoon

The Stones just Rocked...

Did anyone catch the season opener for the Patriots when the Stones played? Did you see Keith Ricahrds on his knee's and think he fell?

I think whoever that was is just being sarcastic.

You can like The Stones more and even think they are the greater band, but saying they are more diverse than The Beatles means she is just lying to herself, or a indication that if she heard one beatles song, it automaticly means the others are like this song, or whatever.

The Stones songs were much more similar sounding (I used to get Brown Suger confused with other songs)...And regardless, they stuck to one style while The Beatles experiemented with several different things.

Not that it makes any difference, Journey are more diverse than say The Ramones, but it dosent automaticly mean they are better.

I still say The Beatles, all the way. =)

The_Juke · 01-24-2006, 05:32 AM

I tend to like the Beatles better.... I didn't used to think that way, but as I got older and started playing more bass with older than me musicians They grew on me...

Shooting Star · 01-24-2006, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

I hate it when people say something isnt rock because it is pop...Which is stupid, the thin line between those two arent so great.

Rock N Roll is really just a variation of pop music, anyway.

I meant Rock 'N' Roll as more like 50's rockabilly, as a specific subgenre of rock as a whole... The Elvis/Buddy Holly/Chuck Berry kind. I would never doubt the Beatles themselves are Rock.

ShadowSurfer · 08-29-2006, 12:57 PM

Pete Townshend is a genius. Tommy became a Broadway musical.
He's not just a 3 chord trick.

The Who were great, The Stones were great, and The Beatles were great once George Martin got his hands on them.

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.

boo boo · 08-29-2006, 01:30 PM

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.

baj · 08-29-2006, 01:40 PM

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.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 08-29-2006, 02:01 PM

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.

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

01-24-2006, 05:32 AM	#315 (permalink)
The_Juke Groupie Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Kansas City Posts: 32	I tend to like the Beatles better.... I didn't used to think that way, but as I got older and started playing more bass with older than me musicians They grew on me... __________________ KChost Radio Network 1-888-794-7595 Riff Revolution Sunday, 6-9PM (CST) The Wild Wild Westmar Show Tuesday, 6-9PM (CST) The NightWatch Show Tuesday, 9-11PM (CST) Dial Up \| Broadband

08-29-2006, 12:57 PM	#317 (permalink)
ShadowSurfer Music Addict Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Side II of Band Of Gypsies Posts: 310	Pete Townshend is a genius. Tommy became a Broadway musical. He's not just a 3 chord trick. The Who were great, The Stones were great, and The Beatles were great once George Martin got his hands on them. 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.