For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
With The Beatles certainly has energetic songs...Quote
Paddy
Taking these albums side by side comes down to which has the energy. The Beatles may be superior in their writing on with the Beatles, but they’re not lightning in a bottle like some of the stones tracks are.
Quote
Rockman
12x5 was at every mad party in town .....
Ya just never heard a Beatles record .... no groove
Quote
Taylor1
Again, this is a dumb comparison.Lennon and Mac had been writing together for 7or 8 years.And had George Martin.Keith and Mick less than a year.And had Andrew Loog Oldham. Beatles and Stones can’t fairly be compared until like 1966. Compare Aftemath to Sticky Fingers vs Revolver vs Let it Be, maybe.
Its not a question of liking the thread.It’s a stupid comparison. Both McCartney and Richards have said it takes awhile to write good songs. And you cannot compare a band that’s been writing songs and playing live for seven or 8 years to one which has only been around for a year.The Beatles also had songs and music ideas stored up for several years.The Stones started as an r&b cover bandThey were mostly that in 1964.And then oldham got Mick and Keith to write songs.Quote
JordyLicks96Quote
Taylor1
Again, this is a dumb comparison.Lennon and Mac had been writing together for 7or 8 years.And had George Martin.Keith and Mick less than a year.And had Andrew Loog Oldham. Beatles and Stones can’t fairly be compared until like 1966. Compare Aftemath to Sticky Fingers vs Revolver vs Let it Be, maybe.
If you think is a dumb comparison, why are you posting on the thread? Nobody is forcing you to like this discussion.
Quote
Taylor1Its not a question of liking the thread.It’s a stupid comparison. Both McCartney and Richards have said it takes awhile to write good songs. And you cannot compare a band that’s been writing songs and playing live for seven or 8 years to one which has only been around for a year.The Beatles also had songs and music ideas stored up for several years.The Stones started as an r&b cover bandThey were mostly that in 1964.And then oldham got Mick and Keith to write songs.Quote
JordyLicks96Quote
Taylor1
Again, this is a dumb comparison.Lennon and Mac had been writing together for 7or 8 years.And had George Martin.Keith and Mick less than a year.And had Andrew Loog Oldham. Beatles and Stones can’t fairly be compared until like 1966. Compare Aftemath to Sticky Fingers vs Revolver vs Let it Be, maybe.
If you think is a dumb comparison, why are you posting on the thread? Nobody is forcing you to like this discussion.
Quote
Taylor1Its not a question of liking the thread.It’s a stupid comparison. Both McCartney and Richards have said it takes awhile to write good songs. And you cannot compare a band that’s been writing songs and playing live for seven or 8 years to one which has only been around for a year.The Beatles also had songs and music ideas stored up for several years.The Stones started as an r&b cover bandThey were mostly that in 1964.And then oldham got Mick and Keith to write songs.Quote
JordyLicks96Quote
Taylor1
Again, this is a dumb comparison.Lennon and Mac had been writing together for 7or 8 years.And had George Martin.Keith and Mick less than a year.And had Andrew Loog Oldham. Beatles and Stones can’t fairly be compared until like 1966. Compare Aftemath to Sticky Fingers vs Revolver vs Let it Be, maybe.
If you think is a dumb comparison, why are you posting on the thread? Nobody is forcing you to like this discussion.
Quote
Rockman
only like that Strawberry and
Walrus track so what chance have i got ...
Quote
BoognishWith The Beatles certainly has energetic songs...Quote
Paddy
Taking these albums side by side comes down to which has the energy. The Beatles may be superior in their writing on with the Beatles, but they’re not lightning in a bottle like some of the stones tracks are.