Tell Me :  Talk
Talk about your favorite band. 

Previous page Next page First page IORR home

For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.

Goto Page: 123456Next
Current Page: 1 of 6
The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Honestman ()
Date: December 27, 2009 15:13

Here a review i've picked up on a another forum !


Why the Rolling Stones SUCK when compared to The Beatles
I'm sure I'll catch some heat for this, but so be it. I am damn sick and tired of everyone telling me how great the Rolling Stones are/were - especially when people are comparing them to the Beatles.

In my opinion, the Rolling Stones are/were average at best. When they were going "head to head" with the Beatles, the Fab Four win hands down. Sure, the Stones had some good songs ("Paint it Black", "Satisfaction", and "Get Off My Cloud" come to mind), but those songs are the exception, not the rule. So, to prove my argument, let's take a look at a few points of contention.

Exhibit A - A Random Album Comparison

Let's look at two albums, released within months of each other in 1965 and compare, shall we?

The Rolling Stones - Aftermath

[*]Paint It Black [*]Stupid Girl [*]Lady Jane [*]Under My Thumb [*]Dontcha Bother Me [*]Think [*]Flight 505 [*]High and Dry[*]It's Not Easy [*]I am Waiting [*]Going Home
Now, of those songs, I think only "Paint it Black" and "Under My Thumb" stand out. Since I'm not 100% familiar with this release, I'll go ahead and give the Stones a "wildcard" credit for another good song on here making a total of three out of 11 or about 26.5%

The Beatles - Revolver

[*]Taxman [*]Eleanor Rigby [*]I'm only Sleeping [*]Love to You [*]Here, There and Everywhere [*]Yellow Submarine [*]She Said, She Said [*]Good Day Sunshine [*]And Your Bird Can Sing [*]For No One [*]Doctor Robert [*]I Want to Tell You [*]Got to Get You into My Life [*]Tomorrow Never Knows

Every song on Revolver, except for "Love To You" and "Elanor Rigby" are classics. Since there are 14 cuts on the album, that's over 85%!

Exhibit B - The Solo Careers

Sure, The Rolling Stones have longevity on their side - they have been around since dirt - and Keith was very cool in his time. But let's look at the individual work outside of the group framework.

I think it's safe to say that the solo careers of the Stones are rather lackluster. Mick had a minor hit with David Bowie and "Dancin' in the Streets" in the mid-1980's but that's really it. I won't comment on Mick's "acting" endeavors. Keith has had a few solo albums come out and they were decent, but received very little accliam from fans or critics.

The members of the Beatles, on the other hand, had far more success in the solo arena, both critically and financially. Lennon's work was dark and vaired throughout the 1970's but hit his pinnacle with Double Fantasy before he was murdered. McCartney had great success with Wings and as a solo artist - Flaming Pie being his best work. Harrison's work is a bit more spotty but All Things Must Pass and Cloud Nine are very good. Ringo had a few hits but nothing to write home about. Clearly, the talent of the individual Beatles are superior to the individual Stones.

Exhibit C - Overall Coolness

This is where apologists for the Stones have a good arguement. In thier day, few people were cooler than Mick and Keith. Much like David Lee Roth in the 1980's, guys wanted to be them, girls wanted to bang them. But, as the Stones have not-so-gracefully aged, their coolness has waned as well. I know the Stones are doing a good business on the road right now, but it's a nostalgia act and they are really a shell of their former selves.

The Beatles were also pretty cool in the 1960's, but I would have to agree the Stones were cooler. However, as time has gone by, the Beatles have surpassed the Stones. Sure, Lennon and Harrison are gone (RIP) and Ringo is throwing down his nostalgia act with his "All Starr Band", but is there anyone cooler than Paul McCartney. He looks fabulous, sounds great and is still relevant. I'm not sure I can say the same for the Stones.

Conclusion - The Beatles are Far Superior

I find it difficult to understand why any music fan could come to a different conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, show me - I'm willing to listen and be proven wrong.



Feel free to post your pros and cons opinions once againwinking smiley

HMN
[collectingthestones.blogspot.com]

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Silver Dagger ()
Date: December 27, 2009 15:15

Name the site this appeared on Honestman and let's stage a raiding party. They'll never work in this town again. hot smiley

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Date: December 27, 2009 15:28

Conclusion - The Beatles are Far Superior

I find it difficult to understand why any music fan could come to a different conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, show me - I'm willing to listen and be proven wrong.


Agreed.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: December 27, 2009 15:50

It's a completely pointless argument, as far as I'm concerned it's always been The Beatles AND The Stones.





[www.guitars101.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-27 15:52 by Deltics.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Amused ()
Date: December 27, 2009 15:53

I don't like the Beatles so I don't rate them. I'd take any Stones album (ie Dirty Work) over any Beatles album any hour. smiling smiley

the Beatles did some great things and pushed music industry forward. they were Fab Four. and they bore the hell out of me :-)

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Pelle ()
Date: December 27, 2009 16:03

the beatles did some great stuffs yes, but I dont think they would ever make it so successfull today as the stones..

My aunt saw beatles in 64 and she said that back then they were big because they did something different and noone had ever seen anything like that before, and they quit while they were still pretty big.. But due all other music that comes nowdays they would never make it.. The rolling stones are still doing it because they are musically more proffesional, but with beatles simple 3-chord pop, that would never work today..thats what i think

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Single Malt ()
Date: December 27, 2009 16:12

I think it's useless trying to compare these two great bands.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Erik_Snow ()
Date: December 27, 2009 16:25

I find it difficult to understand why any music fan could come to a different conclusion. If you think I'm wrong, show me - I'm willing to listen and be proven wrong.

What an absurd thing to say...just like the whole article.
It's just a matter of ones personal taste......

"proven wrong" - I think the writer of this article/blog is no music fan at all, if he think musictaste can be "proven" or "rated"......what BS.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Eleanor Rigby ()
Date: December 27, 2009 16:38

perhaps the sale of the latest cds/dvds might prove a point?

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Gazza ()
Date: December 27, 2009 17:50

A pointless argument which probably meant a lot in 1964 if you happened to be 10 years old, but an obsession which when discussed in any context beyond that strikes me as being absolutely stupid and infantile.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: December 27, 2009 18:04

Beatles - excellent box sets for their remasters in stereo and mono
Stones - nothing except the usual in a box

Ha ha.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: bernardanderson ()
Date: December 27, 2009 18:08

"I am damn sick and tired of everyone telling me how great the Rolling Stones are/were - especially when people are comparing them to the Beatles."
this person needs to find new friends, because whoever compares the stones to the beatles is a complete and utter moron. might as well compare steely dan to glenn gould.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: originalstones ()
Date: December 27, 2009 18:17

How can anyone argue about something that has to do with personal taste. I could never understand that. This argument was pointless in the Sixties, and it's pointless now.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: December 27, 2009 18:28

Yeah...........But stil fun..........I'll be back

__________________________

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: skipstone ()
Date: December 27, 2009 18:57

Because it's a monumental pointlessness!

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Voja ()
Date: December 27, 2009 19:44

Compare what Mick and Keith done with Ian Stewart, and Paul and John with Pete Best or Stuart Sutcliffe and you'll see who is the best. Or to be on point Beatles destroyed former members, beside Stewart was with Stones till his death, in almost normal circumstances. (I even have to say that he may be lives better life then Keith or M.Taylor)
So Stones or Beatles?

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: NICOS ()
Date: December 27, 2009 20:10

The Stones.......................................

Pallenberg
Shirley Watts
Anna Wohlin
Rose Millar
Chrissie Shrimpton
Marianne Faithful
Marsha Hunt
Bianca Jagger
Jerry Hall
Luciana Gimenez
L'Wren Scott
Patti Hansen

Beatles...................

Yoko Ono (Ha ha ha ha)
Linda Eastman
Pattie Boyd
Barbara Bach (Ok)
Heather Mills
May Pang
Cynthia Lennon
Jane Asher
Maureen Cox
Olivia Trinidad Arias

__________________________

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: slew ()
Date: December 27, 2009 20:31

Honestman - I agree to a point. But come on average at best?! Aftermath three good songs? PLEASE!!!!

Mother's Little Helper
Stupid Girl
Lady Jane
Under My Thumb
Doncha Bother Me
I Am Waiting
High and Dry
Out of Time
It's Not Easy

All good songs

The Beatles without George Martin's musical guidance would they have been what they were? Who knows its speculative but I suspect that they would not have been as innovative without him.

I watch early stage clips from the Stones and the Beatles and the Stones on stage are FAR more dynamic and exciting than the Beatles ever thought of being. I'm not detracting its kind of hard o know how the Beatles played live with all of the screaming but they just stood there in their moptop haircuts and shook their heads. The Stones had Mick Jagger!

The Beatles musically if you want to get technical are superior to the Stones. Extremely melodic and lyrical tremendous stuff. But when it comes to rock and roll the Stones blow them away. And lets not diss them musically either yes it took them a little longer for all the talent to shine Oldham was not George Martin but the Stones had Brian Jones who could play anything.

As far as the solo stuff Mick waited too long to try by the time he did nobody was interested. By 1985 we were all dying for them to go back on the road. Besides Mick is the ying and Keith is the yang they feed off of each other. Keith on the other hand had a couple of very strong solo outings but us Stones fans wanted The Rolling Stones not solo projects. I once commented to a friend who wants to see Mick sing without Keith standing to his left its so natural at this point.

ANd it really is pointless to compare both bands are vastly different. Just don't tell me The Rolling STones were/are average at best!!!! That is stupid and I'd defend the fab four if someone said it about them.

Revolver although widely heralded is one of my least favorite Beatles albums Rubber Soul is much better!

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: MKjan ()
Date: December 27, 2009 20:49

Sgt.Pepper was George Martin, the George Martin band.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Honestman ()
Date: December 27, 2009 21:01

My opinion is that one couldn't compare them once for all!

Today in France, there's a kind of "little war" but I think it's the same Worldwide,
with the BEATLES fans, They all have the superiority syndrom in front of STONES Fans, but they forgot one thing, the STONES are the GREATEST rock'n'roll band in the world, have you ever heard a good BEATLES Show ?

If you want to answer to this guy who think he's not wrong it's here

Guitar 101

winking smiley

HMN
[collectingthestones.blogspot.com]

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: December 27, 2009 21:03






"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Honestman ()
Date: December 27, 2009 21:04

A good one Deltics a very good onethumbs up

HMN
[collectingthestones.blogspot.com]

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: gripweed ()
Date: December 27, 2009 21:10

just watched parts of the A.R.M.S Charity Concerts last night, weird seeing
both Bill & Charlie playing a Beatles song (besides IWBYM), made me think of other times this has happened ... maybe the RnR HOF 1988, Queens 50th Gala ?

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: rootsman ()
Date: December 27, 2009 21:14

There used to be a law against liking both Beatles and Stones...

However, for those who still think this exists:
It ended when Beatles split up!

So, for 40 years now, it has been okay to like bothsmoking smiley

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Midnight Toker ()
Date: December 27, 2009 21:42

Comparing the two is like comparing a Ferrari and Porsche Turbo Carrera. They are both awesome.

The Beatles started it, the Stones will finish it. The Stones are still rocking 39 years after ther Beatles split up. Although they were competitve, they had great admiration for one another.

The Beatles may have sold more records, but the Stones are more dynamic on stage. Who wins? We do as fans. Without either of them, the history of rock and roll would never have been the same.

The music from both will remain timeless.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: mickscarey ()
Date: December 27, 2009 22:20

honestman or dumbman?

Stones were and are and always be WAY better than the beetles. Plus the Stones are ROCK and ROLL!. the beetles were boy band pop music.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Erik_Snow ()
Date: December 27, 2009 22:26

Quote
mickscarey
honestman or dumbman?

Stones were and are and always be WAY better than the beetles. Plus the Stones are ROCK and ROLL!. the beetles were boy band pop music.

it's not Honestman's article, dummy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-27 22:41 by Erik_Snow.

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: Deltics ()
Date: December 27, 2009 22:36

Hooray! McScarey has spoken!
AND he's done that hilarious misspelling of The Beatles again, always a thigh slapper, that one!
Keep it up McScartney!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: mickscarey ()
Date: December 27, 2009 22:41

it is astounding how many people come to this site to adore the beetles, or srpingsteen or mccartney (now, THAT is boring music). Why not just go to their respective sites and let us celebrate the true greatest band of all time here? It is getting real old. Kinda easy one, yes?

And IF you insist on talking about the beetles why not go to the sites of N'Sync or the Backside Boys and post messages there? Makes more sense, right?

Re: The never ending story of BEATLES versus STONES
Posted by: mickscarey ()
Date: December 27, 2009 22:44

Here is some help...[www.nsync-world.com]

Goto Page: 123456Next
Current Page: 1 of 6


This Thread has been closed

Online Users

Guests: 506
Record Number of Users: 189 on August 24, 2021 20:10
Record Number of Guests: 6295 on November 30, 2021 14:09

Previous page Next page First page IORR home