Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
slew
This why I chose not to post on this topic. GADAWG though I would agree that Let It Be is nowhere near as good as the big four Erik_Snow is not an idiot for posting his opinion just as Send it to me is doubting the moonlandings on the Neil Armstrong thread. Sendittome may be having deluions and is a skeptic but that does not make him an idiot. I don't understand Erik would go on a Stones board and post this unless he wanted to stir it up is another question. Overall in the studio maybe the Beatles were better song crafters than the Stones does not mean I have to like thos songs better. Also Erik Snow Keith may not have invented open G but he certainly pioneered it and mastered and influenced many guitarists with his mastery of the open G thingy. Why put him down for an important musical contribution?

Thanks, Slew
Let It Be is considered a bump in the road among many Beatles-listeners, I understand. Not for me though. Anyway - I'm as big as Stones fan as any of you (not fan as in "follower" ) but this thread shouldn't be taken all that serious. I just thought it was a funny thread. And then and there - I was honest about my opinion. But as soon as Let It Be is through - then I have no intention in taking any stands on this matter. Beatles vs Stones.....good grief, that's so childish. Especially since Rolling Stones stands no chance against the fab 4!

You wanna bet

Rubbish, the Beatles WERE brilliant musicians and songwriters, you mention Let It Be that was around the time of Beggers Banquet and Let It Bleed, two of the Stones brilliant albums not to mention Exile or Stickey Fingers, GHS, IORR, Tatoo You etc plus a dozen singles, countless concerts and the fact that the Stones are 50 years together..... there is just no COMPARISON

Quote
bestfour
Rubbish, the Beatles WERE brilliant musicians and songwriters, you mention Let It Be that was around the time of Beggers Banquet and Let It Bleed, two of the Stones brilliant albums not to mention Exile or Stickey Fingers, GHS, IORR, Tatoo You etc plus a dozen singles, countless concerts and the fact that the Stones are 50 years together..... there is just no COMPARISON

Lol.

The good news is that someday a panel of rock historians will sit down and settle this dispute once and for all. This will be long after the Stones have retired. Long after they have gone out in a blaze of glory with at least one last great album and another tour, no matter how limited that tour might be. Who knows, maybe they make it to 60 years? The game is still on. No doubt the Stones have been playing catch-up for a half century now, but if they close strong, they could get the nod once they finally retire. Of course we all know when that panel gathers together in about ten years and declares the Stones number one, it still won't be over in the eyes of many. Beatles fans will never concede no matter what the Stones may do over the next year to ten years. To me, I love them both, so either outcome will be just fine with me. But, let's let the rock historians settle this.

Beatles made the best ballads, especially after Sgt. Peppers. Even though Magical Mystery Tour only has one great ballad, Fool on the Hill, I like the catchy pop songs like Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane - awesome. Let it Be is their best overall album for ballads, with amazing songs like Let It Be, the Long and Winding Road, and Across the Universe. But, of course, Abbey Road might have the best ballads of all time with Something, Because and Golden Slumbers. I think that the Beatles were far superior to the Rolling Stones at creating great ballads - my wife LOVES them.

The Stones were just better at rock and roll.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 22:24 by drbryant.

Quote
drbryant
Beatles made the best ballads, especially after Sgt. Peppers. Even though Magical Mystery Tour only has one great ballad, Fool on the Hill, I like the catchy pop songs like Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane - awesome. Let it Be is their best overall album for ballads, with amazing songs like Let It Be, the Long and Winding Road, and Across the Universe. But, of course, Abbey Road might have the best ballads of all time with Something, Because and Golden Slumbers. I think that the Beatles were far superior to the Rolling Stones at creating great ballads - my wife LOVES them.

The Stones were just better at rock and roll.

My wife loves them, as well. Or wait - I don't have a wife.
Rolling Stones' ballads mostly sucked before Wild Horses. And they REALLY sucked. I'm blushing allready

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
drbryant
Beatles made the best ballads, especially after Sgt. Peppers. Even though Magical Mystery Tour only has one great ballad, Fool on the Hill, I like the catchy pop songs like Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane - awesome. Let it Be is their best overall album for ballads, with amazing songs like Let It Be, the Long and Winding Road, and Across the Universe. But, of course, Abbey Road might have the best ballads of all time with Something, Because and Golden Slumbers. I think that the Beatles were far superior to the Rolling Stones at creating great ballads - my wife LOVES them.

The Stones were just better at rock and roll.

My wife loves them, as well. Or wait - I don't have a wife.
Rolling Stones' ballads mostly sucked before Wild Horses. And they REALLY sucked. I'm blushing allready

I agree. and I think he would as well. but, she prefers music that rocks with an R&B core. It's funny how you can tell.





Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 22:40 by drbryant.

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
drbryant
Beatles made the best ballads, especially after Sgt. Peppers. Even though Magical Mystery Tour only has one great ballad, Fool on the Hill, I like the catchy pop songs like Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane - awesome. Let it Be is their best overall album for ballads, with amazing songs like Let It Be, the Long and Winding Road, and Across the Universe. But, of course, Abbey Road might have the best ballads of all time with Something, Because and Golden Slumbers. I think that the Beatles were far superior to the Rolling Stones at creating great ballads - my wife LOVES them.

The Stones were just better at rock and roll.

My wife loves them, as well. Or wait - I don't have a wife.
Rolling Stones' ballads mostly sucked before Wild Horses. And they REALLY sucked. I'm blushing allready

I agree.

Ain't it good with a thread one can spew one hatred out on IORR posters? I knew some of you needed it.
I guess you're comparing me with mr Hasselhof for some reason
Well - Hasselhof is really popular in Germany. Among the chicks too. So I guess there's something good in all the bad things

EDIT: Didn't spot his T-shirt before the post below.
I guess I'm not used to looking at men's stomach¨or choothing



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 22:57 by Erik_Snow.

Well, that settles the debate. Penelope Cruz has a Rolling Stones t-shirt and David Hasselhoff has a Beatles shirt, therefore The Stones are better.

Glad we could finally put this nonsense to an end.

Thank Rubber Soul for Aftermath!





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 22:58 by His Majesty.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Well, that settles the debate. Penelope Cruz has a Rolling Stones t-shirt and David Hasselhoff has a Beatles shirt, therefore The Stones are better.

Glad we could finally put this nonsense to an end.

first - someone must ask penelope if she even knows anything about the rolling stones, aside from their tongue logo...i'll volunteer if others are busy/uninterested...

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The good news is that someday a panel of rock historians will sit down and settle this dispute once and for all. This will be long after the Stones have retired. Long after they have gone out in a blaze of glory with at least one last great album and another tour, no matter how limited that tour might be. Who knows, maybe they make it to 60 years? The game is still on. No doubt the Stones have been playing catch-up for a half century now, but if they close strong, they could get the nod once they finally retire. Of course we all know when that panel gathers together in about ten years and declares the Stones number one, it still won't be over in the eyes of many. Beatles fans will never concede no matter what the Stones may do over the next year to ten years. To me, I love them both, so either outcome will be just fine with me. But, let's let the rock historians settle this.

rock historians?..what the hell are those?...some elitist snobs who sit around and debate the merits of other peoples' talent and creativity?...as if our (fans) opinions count for nothing?...leave it to the historians?? please. they can get real jobs like the rest of us. Of all the high-handed tripe...sheesh...The Stones 'playing catch up for half a century'?....WHAAAAT????

Quote
Come On

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
buffalo7478
If we are comparing their output from the 60s, the Beatles win, hands down. The Stones were the better band by the time the Beatles officially imploded....and we will never know what would have happened had the Beatles stayed together till 1974 or 75. If you look at Lennon and McCartney's 70s output, the music is nowhere in the vicinity of what The Stones were doing.

The ex Beatles first few solo albums are amazing(except Ringo's). Easily on par and/or above the stones at their supposed peak circa 1970 - 1972.

They all sucked by 1974.

I'm very intressted in what ablum from 1974 that possibly could be better than John Lennons 'Walls and Bridges'? 'It's only rock'n'roll´is no good suggestion for example...

Addressed to the threadstarter as well (I have not read all of this thread): When did music end up as a competition of this childish kind? What FUN is there really in these arguments?

All the same, I rather take my passions seriously than as fun: Rolling Stones are a passion, what the Beatles never have been. Beatles are one of life's great joys and a taste of rock and pop as arts. I started out liking the Beatles more in the past, but changed preferences. It was first after that I really became a fan of one band, something new to me,

Which is the better, I won't and cannot judge, but what is important to me is which band is most relevant on a personal level? There have been times when Joy Division / New Order have been more relevant to me as a person than the Beatles ever were, even if the Beatles are "greater" than JD/NO.

And if you insist, I began this post to give an answer to the question quoted, here is one candidate (not meaning to say anything other that I like and largely love the Beatles and that I like John Lennon's solo work, because I do) : One candidate though to the challenge as of 1974, judge it.

Tangerine Dream: Phaedra

[en.wikipedia.org])

Quote
Witness
When did music end up as a competition of this childish kind? What FUN is there really in these arguments?

it started around 1964 and this is the most fun we've had on iorr in months. rock on, erik!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Witness
When did music end up as a competition of this childish kind? What FUN is there really in these arguments?

it started around 1964 and this is the most fun we've had on iorr in months. rock on, erik!

At least you would be old enough to 'rememmer' that.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Witness
When did music end up as a competition of this childish kind? What FUN is there really in these arguments?

it started around 1964 and this is the most fun we've had on iorr in months. rock on, erik!

At least you would be old enough to 'rememmer' that.

i'm old enough to remember lots of things that i don't....

Quote
lunar!!!

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
The good news is that someday a panel of rock historians will sit down and settle this dispute once and for all. This will be long after the Stones have retired. Long after they have gone out in a blaze of glory with at least one last great album and another tour, no matter how limited that tour might be. Who knows, maybe they make it to 60 years? The game is still on. No doubt the Stones have been playing catch-up for a half century now, but if they close strong, they could get the nod once they finally retire. Of course we all know when that panel gathers together in about ten years and declares the Stones number one, it still won't be over in the eyes of many. Beatles fans will never concede no matter what the Stones may do over the next year to ten years. To me, I love them both, so either outcome will be just fine with me. But, let's let the rock historians settle this.

rock historians?..what the hell are those?...some elitist snobs who sit around and debate the merits of other peoples' talent and creativity?...as if our (fans) opinions count for nothing?...leave it to the historians?? please. they can get real jobs like the rest of us. Of all the high-handed tripe...sheesh...The Stones 'playing catch up for half a century'?....WHAAAAT????

The Beatles have been finishing ahead of the Stones in public opinion polls for nearly a half century. Sorry, but rock historians are their only hope to ultimately overhaul the Beatles. The Stones fate rests in their hands. The good news is after the Stones go out in a blaze of glory and retire they stand a good chance of overtaking them. That's why this next year is so important to them. Mick knows exactly what is at stake so you can expect they will put forth their best effort in the coming year. Expect some dynamite live performances and a compilation in the fall and then a new album and possible expanded tour in 2013.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
drbryant

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
drbryant
Beatles made the best ballads, especially after Sgt. Peppers. Even though Magical Mystery Tour only has one great ballad, Fool on the Hill, I like the catchy pop songs like Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane - awesome. Let it Be is their best overall album for ballads, with amazing songs like Let It Be, the Long and Winding Road, and Across the Universe. But, of course, Abbey Road might have the best ballads of all time with Something, Because and Golden Slumbers. I think that the Beatles were far superior to the Rolling Stones at creating great ballads - my wife LOVES them.

The Stones were just better at rock and roll.

My wife loves them, as well. Or wait - I don't have a wife.
Rolling Stones' ballads mostly sucked before Wild Horses. And they REALLY sucked. I'm blushing allready

I agree.

Ain't it good with a thread one can spew one hatred out on IORR posters? I knew some of you needed it.
I guess you're comparing me with mr Hasselhof for some reason
Well - Hasselhof is really popular in Germany. Among the chicks too. So I guess there's something good in all the bad things

EDIT: Didn't spot his T-shirt before the post below.
I guess I'm not used to looking at men's stomach¨or choothing

er...so you're looking a bit lower then?

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Mick knows exactly what is at stake so you can expect they will put forth their best effort in the coming year.

Right. Because the minute before Mick hits the stage for their first concert in years he'll be thinking about a band that broke up decades ago.

And what the heck is a "rock historian"?

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50
Mick knows exactly what is at stake so you can expect they will put forth their best effort in the coming year.

Right. Because the minute before Mick hits the stage for their first concert in years he'll be thinking about a band that broke up decades ago.

And what the heck is a "rock historian"?

I doubt Tiger Woods is thinking about beating Jack Nicklaus's record while he is lining up a putt.

The groups are really too different to compare once the Stones shook free of the "psychedelic era". The Stones didn't move forward; they went back to playing R&B based rock and roll, which is something they still do effortlessly and instinctively, and better than anyone else. They covered old American blues numbers from the first half of the 20th century, and those songs fit seamlessly with their new material. So "Prodigal Son" doesn't sound out of place between "Street Fighting Man" and "Stray Cat Blues", and you don't notice the transition from "Gimme Shelter" to "Love in Vain", or from "All Down the Line" to "Stop Breaking Down". The reason is that all that music comes from the same place, and is timeless - music that could have been recorded in 1930, or in 1970 or yesterday.

The Beatles, as great as they were with pop songs and ballads, really never understood that place. From Pepper until the end, the Beatles generally treated rock numbers as "retro", or "getting back to where we once belonged" - recalling the spirit of Elvis (Oh! Darling), the Beach Boys (Back in the USSR) or even themselves (One after 909), and even then, it sounded like fond nostalgia when it was good, and parody when it wasn't.

None of this makes the Stones better than the Beatles - but there is a very important difference.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-29 08:25 by drbryant.

The truth is that Stones copied Lennon (Beatles) 1965-1967 in everything they did, everything....

2 1 2 0

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Nasty Habits
As for output let's use 65 as an example that year the Stones released 4 albums, 3 number 1 singles and did 11 tours. There's never been a more hardworking band. That's what being a musician is all about, not just sitting in a Studio.

4 albums? You're counting the UK and US versions as separate albums? Okay. In that case, The Beatles released 5 albums in 1965.

Nope if that was the case it would also be 5 for the Stones.

"I've got nasty habits I take tea at three"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-29 11:16 by Nasty Habits.

Quote
24FPS
The Stones didn't become Super Stars in the States until their 1972 tour

Are you serious? Did the 69 tour and Altamont pass you by or something? 1000's and 1000's of people travelling across America, flying in from as far as New York etc just to attend a free show.

"I've got nasty habits I take tea at three"

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Well, that settles the debate. Penelope Cruz has a Rolling Stones t-shirt and David Hasselhoff has a Beatles shirt, therefore The Stones are better.

Glad we could finally put this nonsense to an end.

first - someone must ask penelope if she even knows anything about the rolling stones, aside from their tongue logo...i'll volunteer if others are busy/uninterested...

I'll beat you to it. When she wakes up, I'll ask her. BTW she sleeps in a Beatles T-shirt.

Quote
Come On
The truth is that Stones copied Lennon (Beatles) 1965-1967 in everything they did, everything....

Fall 1967

PM: Hey, Mick! I heard the new album, with the 3D cover. Really cool!
MJ: Oh, hi Paul. Well, you know I wanted a cover like Sgt. Pepper, except even better! And we're the Satanic Majesties, like the Lonely Hearts Club Band.
PM: [smiles] That was MY idea, man! Our next album will be better! It's a magical, mystery album. We'll be in disguise and it won't have any rock on it because it will be mostly psychedelic pop, with strings and horns - Hardly any guitars, man! It'll be groovy!
MJ: I dig, man. I wish I could do that too!!
PM: [puzzled] Why don't you?
MJ: Well, Keith says that we should stop following what you guys do, because it's all crap. Him and Stu - they want to go back to making "basic" rock records - they say it's what we do best.
PM: Man, those guys just do not get it, do they?
MJ: In fact, Keith wants to get rid of the extra musicians and just play guitars, bass and drums!
PM: [frowns] Man, our next single is the exact opposite, man. It's a song about how all we need is L-O-V-E, luv, man! We'll be using a complete orchestra in the studio, and we'll record it live for television broadcast around the world - it's complex, man - it's like 4/4, then 3/4, then 4/4, then 3/4! The introduction is horns playing "La Marseillaise"!!
MJ: [excited] Whoaa! [*sighs*] Keith wants our next single to be this bluesy song with a straight guitar intro - it's called Jumping Jack Flash.
PM: "Jack Flash"? Are you serious? Doesn't exactly sound like a global message, man.
MJ: [looks downward] I know, man, I know . . . . .



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-29 17:36 by drbryant.

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
drbryant
Beatles made the best ballads, especially after Sgt. Peppers. Even though Magical Mystery Tour only has one great ballad, Fool on the Hill, I like the catchy pop songs like Hello Goodbye and Penny Lane - awesome. Let it Be is their best overall album for ballads, with amazing songs like Let It Be, the Long and Winding Road, and Across the Universe. But, of course, Abbey Road might have the best ballads of all time with Something, Because and Golden Slumbers. I think that the Beatles were far superior to the Rolling Stones at creating great ballads - my wife LOVES them.

The Stones were just better at rock and roll.

My wife loves them, as well. Or wait - I don't have a wife.
Rolling Stones' ballads mostly sucked before Wild Horses. And they REALLY sucked. I'm blushing allready

Ha ha, you must be taking the piss here

As Tears Go By
Lady Jane
Play With Fire
Ruby Tuesday
Back Street Girl
No Expectations
Factory Girl
You Got The Silver

didn't suck at all

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Revolver and Aftermath? Two fantastic albums by two fantastic bands

Yes, two fantastic bands, but where as Revolver contains such far-out moments as Tomorrow Never Knows, the overlong Aftermath contains pap like What To Do - a likeable enough song, but something reminiscent of a circa-1963 Lennon/McCartney effort. I adore the Stones, but the Beatles were light years ahead untill Jagger/Richards started to really focus on the long player and their teaming up with Jimmy Miller.

Wow, 10 pages!

Quote
Big Al

Quote
DandelionPowderman


Revolver and Aftermath? Two fantastic albums by two fantastic bands

Yes, two fantastic bands, but where as Revolver contains such far-out moments as Tomorrow Never Knows, the overlong Aftermath contains pap like What To Do - a likeable enough song, but something reminiscent of a circa-1963 Lennon/McCartney effort. I adore the Stones, but the Beatles were light years ahead untill Jagger/Richards started to really focus on the long player and their teaming up with Jimmy Miller.

I love Aftermath, but that's a good point..