Quote
tomcasagranda
I don't think the Stones would have had the gall to place Revolution No 9 on any album

Almost ALL of Satanic ranks with #9

Quote
Gazza
Revolution 9 is f**king brilliant.

Uneven album, though. The high points are as majestic as ever but it has too much filler. George Martin was right in suggesting to them that they should have trimmed the fat and kept it as a single album. The 'half songs' on it dont work as well as they do on the superior Abbey Road (their best album IMO and one of the greatest three or four albums made by anyone)

Exile on the other hand - I wouldnt change a note of it. Its perfect.

Maybe not fair to compare them both just because they're double LPs, as the White album is about 25 minutes and 12 songs longer.

Abbey Road is indeed fantastic. Best Beatles album. Better than Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed. At least on par with Sticky Fingers.

Quote
kleermaker

Quote
Gazza
Revolution 9 is f**king brilliant.

Uneven album, though. The high points are as majestic as ever but it has too much filler. George Martin was right in suggesting to them that they should have trimmed the fat and kept it as a single album. The 'half songs' on it dont work as well as they do on the superior Abbey Road (their best album IMO and one of the greatest three or four albums made by anyone)

Exile on the other hand - I wouldnt change a note of it. Its perfect.

Maybe not fair to compare them both just because they're double LPs, as the White album is about 25 minutes and 12 songs longer.

Abbey Road is indeed fantastic. Best Beatles album. Better than Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed. At least on par with Sticky Fingers.

Better than Let It Bleed? But, but.....how can anything top the toppermost of the poppermost?

White Album...60s vs 70s...that's easy!

Stones my favourite band ofcourse...

On this board- take a wild guess..

Quote
BlackHat
Newsflash: You can have and enjoy both.

Newsflash: I'm sure everybody realizes that. It's a message board and there's not much Stones stuff going on. Topics like this are just for fun. Like ranking albums or choosing "desert island discs" and the like. Do I ever plan on getting stranded on a desert island with only one album? No, but sometimes I still partake in the game.

Quote
NoCode0680

Quote
BlackHat
Newsflash: You can have and enjoy both.

Newsflash: I'm sure everybody realizes that. It's a message board and there's not much Stones stuff going on. Topics like this are just for fun. Like ranking albums or choosing "desert island discs" and the like. Do I ever plan on getting stranded on a desert island with only one album? No, but sometimes I still partake in the game.

If that's the case then Who's Next is my desert island album..not one bad song.. at least to me

Can I have both please? Though this is the rare case where the Beatles had more filler. I'll take Turd On The Run over Wild Honey Pie any day.

Quote
Gazza

Quote
bob r
its like asking which of your kids you like best........

My favourite son is called Exile, oddly enough. The runt of my litter is called Satanic.

Is he marked with the sign 666 on his crown? Check under his hair.

Beatles are better studio, Stones better live.

I don't know if this has already been posted here....but Cher and David Letterman discussed this very topic recently:





Starts about 12:42

Quote
kleermaker
Beatles are better studio, Stones better live.

The 1963 - 1969 stones?

Comparing The Beatles with the post Jones Rolling Stones is a bit silly because any band can bring in some younger hot shot musicians and move in different, arguably better ways than they can in their original form.

Quote
kleermaker

Abbey Road is indeed fantastic. Best Beatles album. Better than Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed. At least on par with Sticky Fingers.

Abbey Road is one of my least favourite Beatles albums. Way too much McCartney, the Harrison songs are too sweet for my taste and Lennon's material is not his best. The only decent song is I Want You (She's So Heavy). Not even close to BB or LIB.
I'd rather hear Emotional Rescue any day!

Quote
His Majesty

Comparing The Beatles with the post Jones Rolling Stones is a bit silly because any band can bring in some younger hot shot musicians and move in different, arguably better ways than they can in their original form.

I think you have a point there. And also a good reminder what a big change occurred at the time when the band was 'updated' with Mick Taylor. It doesn't look like that any longer, since they came out as winners, but there was a big risky involved there (even though I don't think the Stones had a choice really). Not musically but imagewise, and The Stones tried to be as diplomatic as they ever could when announced the change.

A bit like if The Beatles had replaced George Harrison by, say, Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page (musically the band even might have sounded better and surely more competent if hey have decided to continue and go back to road...). Or if we continue the analogy, if the Stones had acted like they did in 1969 to 'update' the band, they should have kicked out Ronnie Wood in 1982 and had replaced him by some more current and relevant player (according to the times), someone from Eddie Van Halen generation of guitar players. Malmsteen? (Besides, by the 80's guitar standards, what was the worth of Ronnie Wood? Wood was a suitable guitarist in the late 70's when a rough guitar playing was a trend, but that was gone by the 80's, when the skillful guitar gods were back...)

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-08 12:31 by Doxa.

Actually - to continue the speculative analogy above - I think that Jagger actually thought along those lines in the early 80's that not just Wood, but the Stones as a whole couldn't be updated enough to cope with the times, and partly for that reason he tried to construct a solo career with the players of the day(who could understand what was going on at the moment).

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-08 12:42 by Doxa.

The Stones got Mick Taylor...the Beatles got Yoko Ono.

Quote
kleermaker
Beatles are better studio, Stones better live.

Funnily this echoes what Jagger said prior 1969 Hyde Park concert: "I always felt that the thing of The Beatles... you know, when they were big - was making records. Ours was like doing concerts"...

I have always loved in Mick's remark that reference to the past as far as the 'bigness' of the Beatles goes - to say that in 1969!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-08 12:55 by Doxa.

Quote
71Tele
Can I have both please? Though this is the rare case where the Beatles had more filler. I'll take Turd On The Run over Wild Honey Pie any day.

How can a swinging hillbilly rocker like TOTR be a filler?

Filler is when stuff is just thrown in to cover up for lack of ideas etc.

The Beatles in 1968 most certainly were not lacking in songs or ideas. Those songs, Revolution #9 and the little interludes are in there because they, whilst navigating their internal frictions, want them to be.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
His Majesty

Comparing The Beatles with the post Jones Rolling Stones is a bit silly because any band can bring in some younger hot shot musicians and move in different, arguably better ways than they can in their original form.

I think you have a point there. And also a good reminder what a big change occurred at the time when the band was 'updated' with Mick Taylor. It doesn't look like that any longer, since they came out as winners, but there was a big risky involved there (even though I don't think the Stones had a choice really). Not musically but imagewise, and The Stones tried to be as diplomatic as they ever could when announced the change.

A bit like if The Beatles had replaced George Harrison by, say, Eric Clapton or Jimmy Page (musically the band even might have sounded better and surely more competent if hey have decided to continue and go back to road...). Or if we continue the analogy, if the Stones had acted like they did in 1969 to 'update' the band, they should have kicked out Ronnie Wood in 1982 and had replaced him by some more current and relevant player (according to the times), someone from Eddie Van Halen generation of guitar players. Malmsteen? (Besides, by the 80's guitar standards, what was the worth of Ronnie Wood? Wood was a suitable guitarist in the late 70's when a rough guitar playing was a trend, but that was gone by the 80's, when the skillful guitar gods were back...)

- Doxa

Remember the Stones kicked Jones out because he didn't function anymore, so they had no choice. If he was still active and not 'wasted' he would still be in the band. Besides it's not fair to compare Harrison with Jones, because Harrison acted more like Taylor during the last years of the Beatles (his guitar playing on the last Beatles albums is splendid). With Harrison they were already 'update'. Second thing is that Taylor never had the role of the dominating lead guitar hotshot, but he added something special the way Jones did during his tenure in the band.

Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
kleermaker

Abbey Road is indeed fantastic. Best Beatles album. Better than Beggars Banquet and Let It Bleed. At least on par with Sticky Fingers.

Abbey Road is one of my least favourite Beatles albums. Way too much McCartney, the Harrison songs are too sweet for my taste and Lennon's material is not his best. The only decent song is I Want You (She's So Heavy). Not even close to BB or LIB.
I'd rather hear Emotional Rescue any day!

You're kidding!
What about Pepper and Mystery Tour? Both initiated (and dominated) by McCartney too. Both great.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker
Beatles are better studio, Stones better live.

The 1963 - 1969 stones?

Comparing The Beatles with the post Jones Rolling Stones is a bit silly because any band can bring in some younger hot shot musicians and move in different, arguably better ways than they can in their original form.

Comparing during the same time is the best thing to do of course. So let's compare them when they were both still active. Then I must say again: Beatles better studio, Stones better live. But well, the difference is so small. What has always bothered me is that the Stones always have dismissed Their Satanic, while the Beatles were always proud of Pepper. I love both albums, but I think Pepper is slightly better than Satanic.

Another thought: however great Beggars B. is, it is in fact a conservative move, compared to the innovation by the Beatles during that time. As for Let It Bleed: great songs, but a weak performance in the studio. I love those songs live so much more (during the Taylor years of course). But well, the Stones didn't have a George Martin, and I think the couple Lennon/McCartney is a tiny bit stronger than Jagger/Richards.

Last remark: the Beatles broke up too soon, the Stones better had broke up end 1973. Best scenario: a break up of both bands end 1973 and a reunion in the eighties or nineties, but of course with John Lennon still alive and kicking. Wouldn't that be great!

Beatles? Stones? Neither of them. Bay City Rollers were the best, they were better than the Beatles which by default makes them better them better than the Stones.

Some days ya want apple pie, some days cherry pie

Quote
kleermaker


Comparing during the same time is the best thing to do of course.

Studio essentially covers 1963 - 1969 then, but live(that we are able to compare via recordings) is essentially 1963 - 1966.

Do you think the stones were better than The Beatles as a live band during 1963 - 1966?

There's also December 1968/January 1969. Both feature the main band with additional musician(s).

Rock & Roll Circus v Apple Rooftop.



It troubles me that you would wish for Lennon to have survived, but ignore that for Jones.

Quote
kleermaker

Taylor never had the role of the dominating lead guitar hotshot.

Of course he did, he was a mix of that as well as the other view you state.

Harrison was indeed splendid on Abbey Road. As a player and despite lacking a bit in technique department he was a much more subtle and serving of the song player than Taylor ever was.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-08 20:28 by His Majesty.

Quote
Eirik
On this board- take a wild guess..

It's playing out quite evenly though.

Is this thread still going, I thought the Stones won...

I think Family sneaked in to top spot whilst everyone was arguing.

and, they were @#$%& ace live!





Wonderful noise!





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-08 22:04 by His Majesty.

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
kleermaker


Comparing during the same time is the best thing to do of course.

Studio essentially covers 1963 - 1969 then, but live(that we are able to compare via recordings) is essentially 1963 - 1966.

Do you think the stones were better than The Beatles as a live band during 1963 - 1966?

There's also December 1968/January 1969. Both feature the main band with additional musician(s).

Rock & Roll Circus v Apple Rooftop.



It troubles me that you would wish for Lennon to have survived, but ignore that for Jones.

Quote
kleermaker

Taylor never had the role of the dominating lead guitar hotshot.

Of course he did, he was a mix of that as well as the other view you state.

Harrison was indeed splendid on Abbey Road. As a player and despite lacking a bit in technique department he was a much more subtle and serving of the song player than Taylor ever was.

O well, that little Rooftop concert is absolutely ace! So I withdraw my statement about the Stones being better live during 63-69.

You suggest as if I don't regret Jones is dead. Of course I do. It goes without saying. Anyway, the Beatles with Lennon and Harrison were stronger on guitar than the Stones with Richards and Jones. To me the Stones live is so much Richards-Taylor that I have mixed things up. My bad indeed.

No, Taylor always served the song. But do your ears serve you, that's the question. Maybe you're a bit too biased. Harrison and Taylor have something in common I discovered. Never been a Beatles-expert, so the similarity struck me when I listened more carefully to Abbey Road last night. When compared to the Jones/Richards guitar couple one could be misled by thinking that Taylor was a hotshot lead guitarist in the Stones. He wasn't.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Is this thread still going, I thought the Stones won...

Wrong. The Beatles did.