I love them both. The Beatles were ,musically speaking, progressive and the Rolling Stones were/are a conservative band by that I mean that they've stuck to a musically tradition most of the time. Both angles are fine, musicians just have to do what they do best and also make music that their audience wants to listen to.
Rock and roll,
Mops

<<<...what about Stones V Beatles in a drag race ... I reckon the Stones would beat em'......>>>

Are you sure?



With the exception of Harrison, it would mostly be a race between chauffeurs, wouldn't it?

Are we still going on about this? I though we finished this matter since we concluded that The Stones soared past The Beatles at Glastonbury. Let's move on to something else now...

ok,songs,records-who did this first and that first.but is there really anyone on this planet,no matter how much they love the beatles- that can seriously,with a straight face say they are a better band performing on a stage in front of a live audience than the rolling stones??

it all boils down to how good you are on a stage-live.you can sit in a studio with your little producer jerking off and making crazy music for a bunch of acid heads but when those spotlights hit-its jagger and the fukcing stones,hands down-lights out.

Well lem, I can say with a straight face that when The Beatles were playing in Hamburg and the early days in England at the Cavern and their English tours pre 64, they were one of the hottest live acts there was. It wasn't until the rot of Beatlemania where they had to play the same 25-30 minute set multiple times a day that they weren't playing well. There is no way they would have gotten popular if they didn't have a unique and hard hitting live show. Which they did.

Another great live source for how good they were are the Beatles as the Beeb shows. Fantastic!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-27 03:40 by whitem8.

Quote
whitem8
Well lem, I can say with a straight face that when The Beatles were playing in Hamburg and the early days in England at the Cavern and their English tours pre 64, they were one of the hottest live acts there was. It wasn't until the rot of Beatlemania where they had to play the same 25-30 minute set multiple times a day that they weren't playing well. There is no way they would have gotten popular if they didn't have a unique and hard hitting live show. Which they did.

Another great live source for how good they were are the Beatles as the Beeb shows. Fantastic!

I agree about the BBC. Its really ashame they didn't take some of those songs out on the road. It would have been nice for them to slip in something every now and then that wasn't on a record, or was only played once or twice. Even the Stones did this at the time with songs like "I'm Movin On",(albeit released later on an album), "Hey Crawdaddy" to name a couple.
Further the Beatles playing at the BBC is definitely more intense than on the album, specifically Ringo who plays with more ferocity than on the albums. Where was this enthusiasm and energy later?

Quote
Happy Jack

Quote
whitem8
Well lem, I can say with a straight face that when The Beatles were playing in Hamburg and the early days in England at the Cavern and their English tours pre 64, they were one of the hottest live acts there was. It wasn't until the rot of Beatlemania where they had to play the same 25-30 minute set multiple times a day that they weren't playing well. There is no way they would have gotten popular if they didn't have a unique and hard hitting live show. Which they did.

Another great live source for how good they were are the Beatles as the Beeb shows. Fantastic!

I agree about the BBC. Its really ashame they didn't take some of those songs out on the road. It would have been nice for them to slip in something every now and then that wasn't on a record, or was only played once or twice. Even the Stones did this at the time with songs like "I'm Movin On",(albeit released later on an album), "Hey Crawdaddy" to name a couple.
Further the Beatles playing at the BBC is definitely more intense than on the album, specifically Ringo who plays with more ferocity than on the albums. Where was this enthusiasm and energy later?

There are some interesting interviews from John and George during various years where they comment on how the commercial machine utterly controlled their live shows. The need to do as many shows as possible (hence two and sometimes 3 or 4 shows a day) and playing the same set over and over just killed their spontaneity and musicianship. I agree, Ringo on the BBC stuff is insane and his drumming is far more aggressive, witness the version of Long Tall Sally on Beatles at the BEEB vol. 1. He is on F I R E!

Quote
whitem8

Quote
Happy Jack

Quote
whitem8
Well lem, I can say with a straight face that when The Beatles were playing in Hamburg and the early days in England at the Cavern and their English tours pre 64, they were one of the hottest live acts there was. It wasn't until the rot of Beatlemania where they had to play the same 25-30 minute set multiple times a day that they weren't playing well. There is no way they would have gotten popular if they didn't have a unique and hard hitting live show. Which they did.

Another great live source for how good they were are the Beatles as the Beeb shows. Fantastic!

I agree about the BBC. Its really ashame they didn't take some of those songs out on the road. It would have been nice for them to slip in something every now and then that wasn't on a record, or was only played once or twice. Even the Stones did this at the time with songs like "I'm Movin On",(albeit released later on an album), "Hey Crawdaddy" to name a couple.
Further the Beatles playing at the BBC is definitely more intense than on the album, specifically Ringo who plays with more ferocity than on the albums. Where was this enthusiasm and energy later?

There are some interesting interviews from John and George during various years where they comment on how the commercial machine utterly controlled their live shows. The need to do as many shows as possible (hence two and sometimes 3 or 4 shows a day) and playing the same set over and over just killed their spontaneity and musicianship. I agree, Ringo on the BBC stuff is insane and his drumming is far more aggressive, witness the version of Long Tall Sally on Beatles at the BEEB vol. 1. He is on F I R E!

Funny things, that's not even the best version of Long Tall Sally. There's a version on the Complete BBC on Disc 1 thats even more racaous. The whole group seems to cut loose.

....okay what about a tug-o-war between Stones and Beatles ?????????



ROCKMAN

John's 'Aunt Mimi' to a 5 year old John at the dinner table, words of encouragement to finish up his veg:

"all I am saying, is give peas a chance".

in my opinion these are the 2 best rock albums ever, but which is the best?

They're not even the best albums from the Beatles or the Stones

However, Exile is the better one of these albums, imo.

The White Album is too messy and uneven to my liking.

Exile has far more appeal to me..personally, I haven't listened to the White Album in years..but I listen to Exile often..

Man, if you come over to my place you'll hear both and lots more beside.

Both are excellent albums so I'm not even trying to compare these two

Quote
DandelionPowderman
They're not even the best albums from the Beatles or the Stones

However, Exile is the better one of these albums, imo.

The White Album is too messy and uneven to my liking.

Agree...to me The White Album sounds like solo out-takes by each of the members



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-11-06 19:36 by reg thorpe.

I don't think the Stones would have had the gall to place Revolution No 9 on any album: it reeks of hubris. Why McCartney didn't put his spoke in there is beyond me ?

However, that doesn't mean I don't like the album, as it has some great tracks on it, i.e. Back In The USSR, Dear Prudence, Long Long Long, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Happiness is A Warm Gun, etc.

Both

Neither album is my favorite from the respective bands, but I like them. I think I like Exile better as an overall album, but I like individual songs on The White Album better than I like individual songs on Exile. But as an overall concept, I think Exile works better. It's an album I can turn on and leave on, The White Album requires a lot of skipping of songs for me. I don't consider any song on Exile to be filler, there are many on The White Album I consider filler.

The Beatles could have made it a single record and eliminate some of the crappier songs like Revolution 9, Why don't we it in the road, don't pass me by, wild honey pie.. while Exile doesn't have much filler and warrants a double album

They are both ace.

Not a big fan of Exile, I think it is way overrated. The White album is a masterpiece although I absolutely agree that cuts like Why don't we do it in the road and Honey Pie are utter Shite...

Quote
reg thorpe
The Beatles could have made it a single record and eliminate some of the crappier songs like Revolution 9, Why don't we it in the road, don't pass me by, wild honey pie.. while Exile doesn't have much filler and warrants a double album

You'd have then missed Lowell Fulson's excellent cover of Why Don't We Just Do It In The Road.

I didn't realize people disliked "Why Don't We Do It In The Road". It's not one of the songs I consider filler. I think it's catchy, though maybe they could have developed the lyrics some more. But I don't guess it's any less developed than "Casino Boogie" with the cut-up approach.

Quote
reg thorpe
The Beatles could have made it a single record and eliminate some of the crappier songs like Revolution 9, Why don't we it in the road, don't pass me by, wild honey pie.. while Exile doesn't have much filler and warrants a double album

Really, that is in fact, a common subject on Beatles boards I think.

both are 11/10 albums...which of them contains 'Happiness is a warm gun'...that one is the best....

2 1 2 0

Quote
tomcasagranda
I don't think the Stones would have had the gall to place Revolution No 9 on any album: it reeks of hubris. Why McCartney didn't put his spoke in there is beyond me ?

No, but they did put Sing This All Together (See What Happens) on TSMR which was nearly as bad. And a year before too! ><

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
tomcasagranda
I don't think the Stones would have had the gall to place Revolution No 9 on any album: it reeks of hubris. Why McCartney didn't put his spoke in there is beyond me ?

No, but they did put Sing This All Together (See What Happens) on TSMR which was nearly as bad. And a year before too! ><

Listen to that, Lennon you bastard! And you were always saying that the Stones were always following the Beatles...><

- Doxa

They are both different things though.