For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Stoneage
Doesn't this one belong to the Beatles versus the Stones thread?
Lol yet John is on the @#$%& Stones own Rock And Roll Circus. Keeping grasping at straws. You'll never find one. Both groups are very respectful of the other.Quote
buttons67
i think the stones have always been respectful of the beatles, i dont think that has ever worked in reverse,
lennon said in an interview around 1970, something to the effect of i like honky tonk women but nothing much else, when appraising the stones songlist at that time
Quote
Doxa
To me it looks like THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES is for Beatles freaks, and seemingly for McCartney as well - as once upon time for Lennon - the most significiant, if not the only album the Stones ever did. The argument showing the superioty of the Beatles is so strongly based on the example of SATANIC MAJESTIES, since the Stones so clearly were 'following' the lead of the Beatles there. Part of the Beatles mythology is the idea of them being such adventurous, innovative, experimental and 'first' in everything. Like that alone equals to greatness.
However, those following the story of the Stones more closely, or even being fans of them, might imagine that SATANIC MAJESTIES was not the album the band is most remembered for... If the claim that the Stones were copying SGT. PEPPER there is true, one might even conclude that the best thing the Stones ever did was to stop to following the example of the Beatles...
- Doxa
What, me worry?!Quote
Hairball
Lol @ the Daily Mail....almost as much credibility as Mad Magazine...
Quote
buttons67
i think the stones have always been respectful of the beatles, i dont think that has ever worked in reverse,
lennon said in an interview around 1970, something to the effect of i like honky tonk women but nothing much else, when appraising the stones songlist at that time
...if you LIVED thru the '60's.....you WOULDN'T remember!!!!Quote
Rockman
..... the ye olde conversation ......
If ya lived thru the sixties you'll remember
the ones who were Beatle fans and what girly breaths they were ....
Quote
crholmstrom
Quote
EddieByword
McCartney .....'We did Sergeant Pepper and the Stones did a psychedelic album. There was a lot of that,' he added.
Maybe you were both influenced by things other than each other..............like shed loads of LSD.....possibly........maybe?
Quote
Rocknroll1969
Both bands made lots of great songs. If the Beatles had not made it would The Rolling Stones have? It’s more than being a great band. It seems in the music business there is a lot of luck involved.
Quote
NikkeiQuote
Rocknroll1969
Both bands made lots of great songs. If the Beatles had not made it would The Rolling Stones have? It’s more than being a great band. It seems in the music business there is a lot of luck involved.
That's for Dick Rowe to decide. In the meantime, the Beatles don't exist and never did an actual tour as that stuff wasn't invented yet
Quote
dmay
I enjoy listening to both bands. Re copying Sergeant Pepper, many bands did. Tommy by the Who can be traced back to Pepper as it (Pepper) was one of the first, if not the first, rock/pop concept album. After Pepper, think about how much art work on albums went psychedelic and the albums featured concept themes (hello, Moody Blues). Re Pepper, itself, vastly overrated, IMHO. I'll take Revolution and Rubber Soul over it any day.
As to who was the better band back then, I give my nod to the Beatles. They were innovative and very creative in the studio (thank you George Martin) and Lennon and McCartney were superb as a songwriting team. I wouldn't call all of their songs great, but one must admit they wrote many great songs that will stand the test of time. The Stones were something different and, as McCartney noted, rooted in a different style of music than the Beatles, thus the Stones having a harder sound than the Beatles, along with capturing bits of what today is called Americana on their albums from the late 1960s onward.
As for MJ's reference to longevity, selling out arenas and stadiums, etc., to this day, this has little to do with saying who was the better band. There are any number of performers from the 1960s, 1970s, still touring out there. Does this make them better bands than the Beatles because they are still here? I think not. Like the Stones, they're running on nostalgia and playing them golden oldies for the crowd and money. The Stones pointed out this path - playing for the crowd - when they penned the line "Why don't we sing this song altogether...." But, of course, Ringo and McCartney do the same with their tours.
Quote
dmay
I enjoy listening to both bands. Re copying Sergeant Pepper,
Quote
floodonthepage
The thing is, the Beatles arguably are better musicians, academically speaking...but ultimately they don't move me like the Stones do. No other band or artist does. Like someone said, the Beatles are head music. With the exception of a few songs, I don't feel that much when I listen to the Beatles, though I do enjoy listening to them.
A side note, it seems that Beatles cover bands often are able to "cover the sound" pretty well, whereas Stones cover bands never sound quite right, to me. I think this has to do with the X Factor the Stones possess, which is that age old wobble that they have...and Stones cover bands just play the notes on the page and can't capture the wobble.
Quote
stickyfingers101Quote
floodonthepage
The thing is, the Beatles arguably are better musicians, academically speaking...but ultimately they don't move me like the Stones do. No other band or artist does. Like someone said, the Beatles are head music. With the exception of a few songs, I don't feel that much when I listen to the Beatles, though I do enjoy listening to them.
A side note, it seems that Beatles cover bands often are able to "cover the sound" pretty well, whereas Stones cover bands never sound quite right, to me. I think this has to do with the X Factor the Stones possess, which is that age old wobble that they have...and Stones cover bands just play the notes on the page and can't capture the wobble.
Certainly NOT Ringo!!!