Quote
jpasc95

Quote
rocker1

Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.

um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?

I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.

during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

Yeah, okay, I get that. I think there is subtext to all of this that is more complex. My favorite example of this is in the Dalton book about the Stones (circa 1981: entitled "The First Twenty Years" ) , in which there is a questionnaire circa 1965 that is reprinted with the Stones responses to a "personality survey." Mick is quoted as asking the administrator of the survery "where is John Lennon's questionnaire?" (the Beatles had previously taken it). The man replied with exasperation that Mister Epstien threatened to sue if he reprinted Lennon's responses, which so amused Mick that he agreed to answer the questions. Well, the Stones answers were reprinted; the Beatles were not...because they had a guy, Brian Epstein, who was a filter for their hard-scrabble roughness. And I think that although the Beatles clearly benefited from Epstein's desire to see them achieve maximum commercial success, at heart, they were @#$%&' punks. And I respect this element of their background.

Also, I think any motto that Keith propagated was "drugs and rock'n roll" and the sex part, at least as far as Keith advanced it, is debatable.

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
rocker1

Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.

um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?

I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.

during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
rocker1

Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.

um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?

I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.

during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.

Good lord, there is nothing more meek or less manly than wathcing Mick Jagger literally shit his pants on stage at Altamont and start blubbering that hippie-dippie crap about "whosa a fightin anna what for?" and "Why are we fighting; why are we fighting????"

The ONLY guy who showed balls at Altamont, for a few seconds anyway, was Keith Richards, who pointed directly at a guy and said that "that guy there!..etc."

The truth is, we'll never know how the Beatles would've handled such an event at that time. But what we do know, without doubt, is that MJ was essentially a milksop at Altamont. He may as well have been Davy Jones on that stage.

Altamont does nothing but show that the Stones, outside of KR, are nothing but wimps. Keith Richards, however, for about 30 seconds, showed that at one time he could can truly embody a rock n' roll badass spirit. But since about 1982 it's been all about embroidering the myth, "showing the blade" and posturing in a way that Guns and Roses never even dreamed of doing.

If the Beatles were on that same stage, it's entirely likely that John Lennon would've literally pissed all over those Hells Angels. Of course, he may have been beaten to death for being a faggy Englishman too who let Epstein suck his cock in Spain in 1966, etc., but at least he would've had SOMETHING to say about this, during the event, that was light years beyond Jagger's incredibly weak response.

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
rocker1

Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.

um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?

I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.

during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.

Quote
rocker1

Quote
thewatchman

Quote
jpasc95

Quote
rocker1

Quote
jpasc95
The Beatles are more a pop group than a rock one.

um...well...don't we realize that the Hamburg Beatles, the band whose members climbed to the roof of convents just so they could piss on the heads of the nuns who passed below, were probably more punk and more rock than that middle-class bunch of soft poofsters from cushy Richmond ever were?

I mean, some of this tripe about "the Beatles were pop; the Stones were rock" is just inaccurate myth that has unfortunatley been propagated because it's an all-too-easy soundbite.

during the 60's, it seems to me that the Stones were more subversive than the Beatles.
Just remember the papers banner headlines, just remember the numerous trials of Mick and Keith and Brian
Their music was more agressive and they had longer hair. They were the bad boys.
That's why I think that is more into rock spirit and later Keith will make this his own motto : sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.

I agree, the Stones overall were a tougher (less thin skinned) band then the Beatles. The Beatles retreated to the studio and really no longer wanted to perform live to any great degree towards the end. Does anyone seriously think the Beatles would have taken the stage at Altamont that chilly December evening in 1969 considering their state of mind at that time. It is more likely they would have been a "no show" like the meek Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead were that evening. As much as I love the Beatles they just didn't have the mental toughness to survive like the Stones have for all these decades. So yes, the Stones really embody the spirit of rock 'n roll far more than the Beatles ever did, despite the Beatles unbelievable output during the sixties. To me, at the end of the day, (all things considered) it's an absolute dead heat between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. Like someone once said, the Beatles are Sunday morning, and the Stones are Saturday night. Truer words have never been spoken.

Good lord, there is nothing more meek or less manly than wathcing Mick Jagger literally shit his pants on stage at Altamont and start blubbering that hippie-dippie crap about "whosa a fightin anna what for?" and "Why are we fighting; why are we fighting????"

The ONLY guy who showed balls at Altamont, for a few seconds anyway, was Keith Richards, who pointed directly at a guy and said that "that guy there!..etc."

The truth is, we'll never know how the Beatles would've handled such an event at that time. But what we do know, without doubt, is that MJ was essentially a milksop at Altamont. He may as well have been Davy Jones on that stage.

Altamont does nothing but show that the Stones, outside of KR, are nothing but wimps. Keith Richards, however, for about 30 seconds, showed that at one time he could can truly embody a rock n' roll badass spirit. But since about 1982 it's been all about embroidering the myth, "showing the blade" and posturing in a way that Guns and Roses never even dreamed of doing.

If the Beatles were on that same stage, it's entirely likely that John Lennon would've literally pissed all over those Hells Angels. Of course, he may have been beaten to death for being a faggy Englishman too who let Epstein suck his cock in Spain in 1966, etc., but at least he would've had SOMETHING to say about this, during the event, that was light years beyond Jagger's incredibly weak response.

As much as I love the Beatles, the fact remains that they quit over 40 years ago while the Stones rolled on. As far as Jagger at Altamont goes I thought he handled the situation beautifully. Just ask Sam Cutler if he thinks Mick lacked courage that evening. Be honest, if you were put in Mick's shoes that evening what would you have done?

Quote
thewatchman
[As far as Jagger at Altamont goes I thought he handled the situation beautifully. Just ask Sam Cutler if he thinks Mick lacked courage that evening. Be honest, if you were put in Mick's shoes that evening what would you have done?

I would've shit my pants like Mick and done exactly the same thing. Look, Mick did what any reasonalble accountant would've done, and I give him credit for acting in such a mature fashion and not fanning the flames. But somehow this got into a discussion about how "badass" the Stones were at Altamont, etc. If Mick Jagger had even 10% of the innate roughness that some of the Beatles possessed, it's possible there would have been corpses littered all over that area in December of '69. Thank God Mick was a buttoned-down reasonable schoolboy at Altamont and not the devil incarnate that the myth makes him out to be. He very likely diffused a situation that could've easily spun out of control.

As far as Jagger at Altamont goes I thought he handled the situation beautifully.

YES totally ....

Be honest, if you were put in Mick's shoes that evening what would you have done?

.... start yellin' out over & over ... If I ever have a boy I'm gonna name him Harley Panhead Jagger



ROCKMAN

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

There's the answer. Who'd you rather shag? The clown or the big-titted blonde?

JumpingKentFlash

... Or like I heard somebody once say: The Beatles is a day in the life, The Stones is a night in the wife.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
WMiller
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.

><><><><

Quote
IfYouStartMeUp
Stones. The Beatles are good, but they're too much of a 'pop' band for my taste.

I've always found the comparison strange too. For those who claim that The Beatles were a "rock" act, then presumably they think the same of The Dave Clark Five, Gerry & The Pacemakers, Cliff Richard & The Shadows, The Hollies, The Monkees & Hermans Hermits? I love all of those, but I don't consider "pop" to be a dirty word.

Back in the mid 60s I'd compare The Rolling Stones with The Pretty Things, The Who, The Yarbirds, The Kinks, The Animals, etc.

The Beatles were incredible: a unique one-off. They wrote the greatest popular music of the last century. They changed everything and I adore them. However, I'm a bigger Rolling Stones fan.

Quote
rocker1
If the Beatles were on that same stage, it's entirely likely that John Lennon would've literally pissed all over those Hells Angels. Of course, he may have been beaten to death for being a faggy Englishman too who let Epstein suck his cock in Spain in 1966, etc., but at least he would've had SOMETHING to say about this, during the event, that was light years beyond Jagger's incredibly weak response.

He'd probably have asked his wife to get in a bag & start screeching...

Gotta say, apart from George with Patti, The Stones certainly had better taste in women.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 11:56 by Sleepy City.

stones vs. Beatles????





both

Quote
whitem8
stones vs. Beatles????





both

I do like The Beatles alot (particularly 1963 - 1966), but there's other pop-rock acts that I much prefer (The Everly Brothers, Cliff Richard & The Shadows, The Hollies).

Didn't NASA launch a rocket into space way back in the 6-tees with some Beatle tracks included, on a golden disc? Just in case the shuttle encounters extraterrestrial creeps....

Quote
Amsterdamned
Didn't NASA launch a rocket into space way back in the 6-tees with some Beatle tracks included, on a golden disc? Just in case the shuttle encounters extraterrestrial creeps....

They also sent 'Johnny B. Goode' by Chuck Berry...in 1977, long after he was a current chart favourite.

Let's face it, The Beatles were relative flash-in-the-pans compared to many who came before or after them. I truly believe they owe much of their legendary status to the fact that they did split up in 1969/1970, instead of going on to release 'Ebony & Ivory' & 'Borrowed Time' as 80s Beatles singles. Just try to imagine if The Rolling Stones had split up after Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers & never reformed?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 12:37 by Sleepy City.

Quote
WMiller
I like to say that the Rolling Stones are Saturday night and the Beatles are Sunday morning.

Agree, but since I listen to music all the time is a very good thing I like both a lot.

Beatles sings "i wanna hold your hand"
Stones sings "let's spend the night together"

Can you see the difference?

Quote
steffiestones
Beatles sings "i wanna hold your hand"
Stones sings "let's spend the night together"

Can you see the difference?

The Rolling Stones had a much darker & more edgy side to pretty much all their music of course.

Ticket To Ride v Get Off Of My Cloud

Here There & Everywhere v Lady Jane

All You Need Is Love v We Love You

Yellow Submarine v In Another Land

Lady Madonna v Jumpin' Jack Flash

Octupus's Garden v Gimme Shelter

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Amsterdamned
Didn't NASA launch a rocket into space way back in the 6-tees with some Beatle tracks included, on a golden disc? Just in case the shuttle encounters extraterrestrial creeps....

They also sent 'Johnny B. Goode' by Chuck Berry...in 1977, long after he was a current chart favourite.

Let's face it, The Beatles were relative flash-in-the-pans compared to many who came before or after them. I truly believe they owe much of their legendary status to the fact that they did split up in 1969/1970, instead of going on to release 'Ebony & Ivory' & 'Borrowed Time' as 80s Beatles singles. Just try to imagine if The Rolling Stones had split up after Let It Bleed or Sticky Fingers & never reformed?

Maybe "they" would have asked for more?

I do appreciate the Beatles a lot though.
"Michelle" and "Yesterday" are in the "Real Book",
which is quite a compliment for non-Jazz composers.

The stones by a mile!!

The problem with the beatles and it isn't their fault is the fact they are a victim of there own success. Their songs have been played so often I have no idea if they are any good. i can't remember the first time I heard "hard days night" for example so i have no feeling towards it other than don't play that again...I am sick of hearing it!!

If you were there in the sixties I am sure you would still recall the first time you heard there hits and were blown away.....for any generation after they have been sickened by overplay.

That's why it's good to dip into the white album lots of unplayed songs there and listen to obscure songs like hey bulldog and I want you. Then I can really appreciate them.

Quote
Sleepy City
All You Need Is Love v We Love You

That says it all IMHO. The gentle vs the raw.

I love both bands but the Stones have an edge I prefer.

Quote
Sleepy City
Gotta say, apart from George with Patti, The Stones certainly had better taste in women.

Come on. Give Yoko some love here.

Nah, I totally agree with you. Looking at Patti in 64-68 George was a lucky guy. I understand Clapton totally.

Quote
tonterapi

Quote
Sleepy City
All You Need Is Love v We Love You

That says it all IMHO. The gentle vs the raw.

I love both bands but the Stones have an edge I prefer.

Another perhaps valid comparison (as they have similar themes & were recorded around the same time) are Magical Mystery Tour v 2000 Light Years From Home.

what is this...beatles ???????

Rocker1 mentioned the Hamburg times of The Beatles and I have to say that those Hamburg tapes are a real treasure. It was maybe the most interesting Beatles period and it's cool that even that much was recorded. Great fast rock songs with some nice ballads. Nevertheless they weren't that eager to go back to Germany in the late 1962, I feel that this fifth Hamburg period was the last chance for them to perform as the "Old Wild Beatles" before Brian Epstein started to rule more or less. 1963 came those famous Beatle-suits and nicer songs and less ad lib stage bantering and no more chewing gums etc.

[musictravellerstwo.blogspot.com]

These Beatles v Stones arguments are quite boring and useless. I enjoy both bands.

The Beatles or The Stones?

No

Stones and Beatles.........

__________________________

Sigh....






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

The Beatles liked to smile

The Stones liked to smirk


Smile vs. Smirk

Beatles vs. Stones.


The other difference between the two groups, I think the Beatles put out uniformly good material out during their career, while the Stones put out some excellent work but also some rather mediocre work.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-08-06 14:36 by mitchflorida.