Coming back to the threads theme I just don't understand why this is always an issue.
In fact it does not matter who or what is better. The two bands were different and approached the audience and fans in a totally different way. I like both bands and their music, but as I had never a chance to see the Beatles live I can't compare except to the acts who are still around or have been around in such decades I was seeing the Stones.

To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

There was only a little moment, passing the mid-60s that the bands were a bit alike. Then they both were brilliant, imo.

Revolver and Aftermath? Two fantastic albums by two fantastic bands

Chet Baker were better than Miles Davis and as if that wasn't enough
Charlie Parker were better than John Coltrane and
WA Mozart were better than LV Beethoven



2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
Chet Baker were better than Miles Davis and as if that wasn't enough
Charlie Parker were better than John Coltrane and
WA Mozart were better than LV Beethoven

At composing, playing or interpreting?

Quote
Grison
Coming back to the threads theme I just don't understand why this is always an issue.
In fact it does not matter who or what is better. The two bands were different and approached the audience and fans in a totally different way. I like both bands and their music, but as I had never a chance to see the Beatles live I can't compare except to the acts who are still around or have been around in such decades I was seeing the Stones.

To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

Sorry I can't agree with you about your claim that Honky Dory portended all that Bowie would become. In fact starting from Young Americans up to Hours, he did nothing like Honky Dory again. Young Americans, Station to Station, Heros, Low, Lodger, Scary Monsters, even Lets Dance, and then there is 1.Outside and Earthling, very far from Honky Dory's style and all are so far from and different from Honky Dory it is very striking. Hours was when he somewhat returned to that singer songwriter method.

Quote
whitem8

Quote
Grison


To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

Sorry I can't agree with you about your claim that Honky Dory portended all that Bowie would become. In fact starting from Young Americans up to Hours, he did nothing like Honky Dory again. Young Americans, Station to Station, Heros, Low, Lodger, Scary Monsters, even Lets Dance, and then there is 1.Outside and Earthling, very far from Honky Dory's style and all are so far from and different from Honky Dory it is very striking. Hours was when he somewhat returned to that singer songwriter method.

Just listen carefully to the notes inbetween. But as everything that was my oppinion and others have just others. For me things are consequences. Of course one can not foresee the future of the artist in one album, but in retrosprective I see a lot of bands who have one major album (perhaps even not a bestseller) but as a groundbreaking factor.
Then again that is a different thread

easy to agree that some people are better songwriters and prefer listening another artist. Saying that lennon?maccartney are the best but your idol is Johnny Winter. He is a poor songwriter but some people spend 5 hours a day listening him. For the Beatles period lennon?maccartney are better in studio but on stage Stones = 10 and beatles = 2. Just my opinion

A somewhat unluckily chosen thread title.

Where's this thread supposed to lead to?

Quote
dead.flowers
A somewhat unluckily chosen thread title.

Where's this thread supposed to lead to?

we're looking for a new thread leader. would you care to volunteer?

Quote
aprilfool
easy to agree that some people are better songwriters and prefer listening another artist. Saying that lennon?maccartney are the best but your idol is Johnny Winter. He is a poor songwriter but some people spend 5 hours a day listening him. For the Beatles period lennon?maccartney are better in studio but on stage Stones = 10 and beatles = 2. Just my opinion

Have you been watching the 'On The Roof concert' carefully?

Quote
Come On

Quote
aprilfool
easy to agree that some people are better songwriters and prefer listening another artist. Saying that lennon?maccartney are the best but your idol is Johnny Winter. He is a poor songwriter but some people spend 5 hours a day listening him. For the Beatles period lennon?maccartney are better in studio but on stage Stones = 10 and beatles = 2. Just my opinion

Have you been watching the 'On The Roof concert' carefully?

It's only good as a warm-up to GYYYO

Quote
Come On

Quote
aprilfool
easy to agree that some people are better songwriters and prefer listening another artist. Saying that lennon?maccartney are the best but your idol is Johnny Winter. He is a poor songwriter but some people spend 5 hours a day listening him. For the Beatles period lennon?maccartney are better in studio but on stage Stones = 10 and beatles = 2. Just my opinion

Have you been watching the 'On The Roof concert' carefully?

The answer is in the question, they were on the roof ><

Quote
Grison
Coming back to the threads theme I just don't understand why this is always an issue.
In fact it does not matter who or what is better. The two bands were different and approached the audience and fans in a totally different way. I like both bands and their music, but as I had never a chance to see the Beatles live I can't compare except to the acts who are still around or have been around in such decades I was seeing the Stones.

To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

Can't agree more! In the 60's The Beatles appealled to 8 year olds with their clean cut image and nursery rhyme type love songs and therefore got the seal of approval from parents and the establishment alike. The Stones appealled to unruley teenagers with their bad boy image and therefore weren't liked by parents and the establishment. If you listen to early Beatles material its no different to the likes of boy bands of this era, cool for kids and teenage girls with crushes. What happened is the 8 year olds got older but didn't actually grow up! Much like middle aged women who still listen to "Take That" now. The Beatles wanted to "Hold your hand" but the Stones wanted to "f@#* you". Therefore were more diverse with their music and image from the word go! Making them a better band that can never be topped! Wish people would stop blowing smoke up the Beatles asses. Yes they had talent but they were also lucky and got the chance to ride a wave and they rode it until they FIZZLED OUT! Much like the likes of Take That etc

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



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-28 15:35 by Nasty Habits.

Wo nasty you are way off base and just writing the typical cliches of the typical Stones vs Beatles lore.

Quote
Nasty Habits

Quote
Grison
Coming back to the threads theme I just don't understand why this is always an issue.
In fact it does not matter who or what is better. The two bands were different and approached the audience and fans in a totally different way. I like both bands and their music, but as I had never a chance to see the Beatles live I can't compare except to the acts who are still around or have been around in such decades I was seeing the Stones.

To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

Can't agree more! In the 60's The Beatles appealled to 8 year olds with their clean cut image and nursery rhyme type love songs and therefore got the seal of approval from parents and the establishment alike. The Stones appealled to unruley teenagers with their bad boy image and therefore weren't liked by parents and the establishment. If you listen to early Beatles material its no different to the likes of boy bands of this era, cool for kids and teenage girls with crushes. What happened is the 8 year olds got older but didn't actually grow up! Much like middle aged women who still listen to "Take That" now. The Beatles wanted to "Hold your hand" but the Stones wanted to "f@#* you". Therefore were more diverse with their music and image from the word go! Making them a better band that can never be topped! Wish people would stop blowing smoke up the Beatles asses. Yes they had talent but they were also lucky and got the chance to ride a wave and they rode it until they FIZZLED OUT! Much like the likes of Take That etc

Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road and the White Album were also from the 60s. In fact, all Beatles activity was in the 60s.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Nasty Habits

Quote
Grison
Coming back to the threads theme I just don't understand why this is always an issue.
In fact it does not matter who or what is better. The two bands were different and approached the audience and fans in a totally different way. I like both bands and their music, but as I had never a chance to see the Beatles live I can't compare except to the acts who are still around or have been around in such decades I was seeing the Stones.

To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

Can't agree more! In the 60's The Beatles appealled to 8 year olds with their clean cut image and nursery rhyme type love songs and therefore got the seal of approval from parents and the establishment alike. The Stones appealled to unruley teenagers with their bad boy image and therefore weren't liked by parents and the establishment. If you listen to early Beatles material its no different to the likes of boy bands of this era, cool for kids and teenage girls with crushes. What happened is the 8 year olds got older but didn't actually grow up! Much like middle aged women who still listen to "Take That" now. The Beatles wanted to "Hold your hand" but the Stones wanted to "f@#* you". Therefore were more diverse with their music and image from the word go! Making them a better band that can never be topped! Wish people would stop blowing smoke up the Beatles asses. Yes they had talent but they were also lucky and got the chance to ride a wave and they rode it until they FIZZLED OUT! Much like the likes of Take That etc

Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road and the White Album were also from the 60s. In fact, all Beatles activity was in the 60s.

Yes and I was hoping someone would raise this point. if the Stones had quit in 1970 they would of been immortalised to. Imagine if they bowed out after Let it Bleed and Rock'n'Roll circus had been aired in 68 as planned and Gimme Shelter had been the film it was intended to be and other Stones film projects hadn't been shelved. It's very easy to highlight all the high points in a career that spanned only 8 YEARS commercially. Also easy to pick holes in a career that's spanned 50 YEARS. Fact is the Beatles wouldn't and couldn't of cut it in the 70's. If they were still around now they'd be a nostalgia act! They certainly wouldn't look as good or be as interesting to watch on stage. 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.

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

Quote
Nasty Habits

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Nasty Habits

Quote
Grison
Coming back to the threads theme I just don't understand why this is always an issue.
In fact it does not matter who or what is better. The two bands were different and approached the audience and fans in a totally different way. I like both bands and their music, but as I had never a chance to see the Beatles live I can't compare except to the acts who are still around or have been around in such decades I was seeing the Stones.

To Bowie: Most artist tell us in one album their musical ability for the next 10-20 years to come. Despite that the following albums are great there is always a remarkable kickoff album. David Bowie showed his musical future in Hunky Dory. That does not mean he had worse album later on, but the coverage of all his styles was covered by this only album.
Like Led Zeppelin IV, or Queen or a lot of other bands and artists.

Can't agree more! In the 60's The Beatles appealled to 8 year olds with their clean cut image and nursery rhyme type love songs and therefore got the seal of approval from parents and the establishment alike. The Stones appealled to unruley teenagers with their bad boy image and therefore weren't liked by parents and the establishment. If you listen to early Beatles material its no different to the likes of boy bands of this era, cool for kids and teenage girls with crushes. What happened is the 8 year olds got older but didn't actually grow up! Much like middle aged women who still listen to "Take That" now. The Beatles wanted to "Hold your hand" but the Stones wanted to "f@#* you". Therefore were more diverse with their music and image from the word go! Making them a better band that can never be topped! Wish people would stop blowing smoke up the Beatles asses. Yes they had talent but they were also lucky and got the chance to ride a wave and they rode it until they FIZZLED OUT! Much like the likes of Take That etc

Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, Abbey Road and the White Album were also from the 60s. In fact, all Beatles activity was in the 60s.

Yes and I was hoping someone would raise this point. if the Stones had quit in 1970 they would of been immortalised to. Imagine if they bowed out after Let it Bleed and Rock'n'Roll circus had been aired in 68 as planned and Gimme Shelter had been the film it was intended to be and other Stones film projects hadn't been shelved. It's very easy to highlight all the high points in a career that spanned only 8 YEARS commercially. Also easy to pick holes in a career that's spanned 50 YEARS. Fact is the Beatles wouldn't and couldn't of cut it in the 70's. If they were still around now they'd be a nostalgia act! They certainly wouldn't look as good or be as interesting to watch on stage. 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.

Now your just being Nasty

Quote
Nasty Habits
Can't agree more! In the 60's The Beatles appealled to 8 year olds with their clean cut image and nursery rhyme type love songs and therefore got the seal of approval from parents and the establishment alike. The Stones appealled to unruley teenagers with their bad boy image and therefore weren't liked by parents and the establishment. If you listen to early Beatles material its no different to the likes of boy bands of this era, cool for kids and teenage girls with crushes. What happened is the 8 year olds got older but didn't actually grow up! Much like middle aged women who still listen to "Take That" now. The Beatles wanted to "Hold your hand" but the Stones wanted to "f@#* you". Therefore were more diverse with their music and image from the word go! Making them a better band that can never be topped! Wish people would stop blowing smoke up the Beatles asses. Yes they had talent but they were also lucky and got the chance to ride a wave and they rode it until they FIZZLED OUT! Much like the likes of Take That etc

Teenage girls didn't have a crush on Mick Jagger?

How does a band wanting to @#$%& you make them more diverse musically? Explain that one to me. The funny thing is, The Beatles were much more diverse than The Stones.

If you want to describe The Beatles as lucky and riding a wave, The Stones can be described in the same way. And what is this "wave" that you speak of?

When silly people on here say that The Stones were a better live band than The Beatles, are you comparing them when they both were a touring band in the 60s up until when The Beatles quit touring or are you comparing The Stones, late sixties/early 70s, or even all of the 1970s live, to The Beatles? If so, that's dumb.

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.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo

Quote
Nasty Habits
Can't agree more! In the 60's The Beatles appealled to 8 year olds with their clean cut image and nursery rhyme type love songs and therefore got the seal of approval from parents and the establishment alike. The Stones appealled to unruley teenagers with their bad boy image and therefore weren't liked by parents and the establishment. If you listen to early Beatles material its no different to the likes of boy bands of this era, cool for kids and teenage girls with crushes. What happened is the 8 year olds got older but didn't actually grow up! Much like middle aged women who still listen to "Take That" now. The Beatles wanted to "Hold your hand" but the Stones wanted to "f@#* you". Therefore were more diverse with their music and image from the word go! Making them a better band that can never be topped! Wish people would stop blowing smoke up the Beatles asses. Yes they had talent but they were also lucky and got the chance to ride a wave and they rode it until they FIZZLED OUT! Much like the likes of Take That etc

Teenage girls didn't have a crush on Mick Jagger?

How does a band wanting to @#$%& you make them more diverse musically? Explain that one to me. The funny thing is, The Beatles were much more diverse than The Stones.

If you want to describe The Beatles as lucky and riding a wave, The Stones can be described in the same way. And what is this "wave" that you speak of?

The Beatles were surfers? I think he was talking about the Beach Boys!

Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s

The Beatles were better on sea, but the Stones were better on land.

Quote
MightyStonesStillRollin50

Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s

The Beatles were better on sea, but the Stones were better on land.

Until Keith Richards became a pirate, that is.

First off, if the Stones had quit in '70, they wouldn't have been near the worldwide legends they became. There was always a lag between Europe and the States. The Stones didn't become Super Stars in the States until their 1972 tour. That's when Hot Rocks consolidated their past, and Exile showcased their range for rock and blues and even gospel.

And comparisons to the early Beatles vs. early Stones is a little sketchy. Sure, the Beatles sold out with the identical suits and 'I Want To Hold Your Hand' lyrics, before asserting themselves a few years later. But every British band from the era understands its what the Beatles had to do to kick open the door for the rest of them. The Stones tried to sell out, with those matching jackets and poppy version of Come On and the teen love angst Tell Me. If you'd caught them at the right time they might have recorded anything. "Mr. Oldham, Freddie & the Dreamers really want 'I'm Telling You Now', but I'm willing to offer it to your group exclusively...."

Both groups have different strengths. The Beatles could play some nasty blues:
[www.youtube.com]

And the Stones could play some elegant, complex pop. But the Stones could never approach the emotional vocal heights of a Lennon/McCartney harmony. And the Beatles could rarely get as funky as the Richards/Wyman/Watts rhythm package. There. I've settled nothing.

The Beatles were always better on Sundays, but the Stones were better on Saturdays. It's a toss-up. At least on weekends.

The Sons of the Beatles will ultimately top them both, but will never top the Daughters of the Stones.

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!

Quote
Erik_Snow
Rolling Stones stands no chance against the fab 4!

and they even had them outnumbered...

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!

I love them both. I can live with the Beatles getting first mention.