I have a friend that claims he likes the Stoens but constantly bashes them! In your opinions, who is better musically, the Stones or the Grateful Dead, please explain....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-21 01:59 by JJFlash88.

in my opinion, The Rolling Stones...

1. Charlie Watts is an amazing drummer for the type of music he plays. No drummer of the Dead even comes close to the skills of Mr. Watts
2. Mick Jagger is a phenominal showman and blows away Jerry Garcia as far as stage presence. To my ears, Mick is a better singer than Jerry, but that could be a toss up to some people...but as far as stage presence, Mick destroys Jerry hands down!
3. Bill Wyman has layed down memorable bass grooves, the bass guitar in the Dead songs I heard doesnt have any kind of groove at all...at least to my ears...Wyman's bass lines in Emotional Rescue, Slave, and many other tracks is better than any Dead song I heard...
4. Keith Richards is a phenominal song writer! IMO, he is better than Jerry...GD's anthems are Touch Of Grey, Truckin, Casey Jones....Rolling Stones anthems...Start Me Up...Brown Sugar....and I can go on and on...
5. Mick Taylor/Ronnie Wood will blow away any guitar player in the Dead...Mick Taylor with the slide, Ronnie Wood playing the Stones classics and Mick/Brian parts since the mid 70's....
6. Rolling Stones' stage shows from 1989, 1975, 1994, 1997, 2002, 2005/6 blow away any stage show the Dead have ever come up with!
7. Who sold more records? No comparison here.....

Long Live the Stones! Tell your friend he needs to get a new set of ears and get off them drugs!

Are you f*cking kidding, me? The Dead were one of the lamest bands that ever got popular. They made a few great albums - Workingman's Dead and American Beauty, being two of them - but nothing of consequence in terms of long lasting or influential music, unless you count jam bands as being part of the Dead's legacy. They were great for partying music, but after awhile, every song they played started sounding alike. It was fun to listen to them if you were loaded, but beyond that I can't say they were a group you'd go back and listen to again outside of the few good albums they made. I know a lot of people will be ticked off by my comments, telling me how great Garcia was, etc., etc., but the truth of the matter is that Garcia was a far better musician when playing with David Grisman and others. Then, Garcia's talent as a guitar player came through and you realized how shortchanged he was musically while playing with the Dead.

Now, the Stones aren't everyone's cup o' tea, but they were and are an influential band. Think about the fact that these English guys took a music form that was alien to them - American blues music - and made it something for themselves, using Black music forms, American rock and roll and country music, and slowly used these influences in developing their own sound. Being an extremely long time Stones fan, I'll be the first to say the Stones have coasted on their sound and image through many an album and concert, but they still can rock like hell when they put the effort into it. Think about the fact that every motherf*cker who wanted to be a rock star from the late 60s on used the Stones, especially Keith, as their reference. Aerosmith derives directly from the Stones. Izzy from the original Guns'n'Roses copped Keith's look and tone and proudly showed it off in the video for "Sweet Child O' Mine".

I could go on, but, in terms of overall musicality, influence, long lasting impact, etc., the Stones have it all over the Dead. This isn't to knock your friend, but there's no comparison between the Dead and the Stones.

My only thought these days regarding the Stones is that I'd really like to see them do something totally different the next time around, like an all acoustic show; more blues songs - traditional or their own - in shows instead of the well worn hits; songs from their solo albums mixed into a show. I think as an audience we could take these changes and embrace them. But this is another topic and belongs in another part of IORR.

I agree, the Stones are a much better band than the Dead. Having said that, I love Bob Weir aqnd I go to see Ratdog a hell of a lot. I just get annoyed when my friend puts the Stones down. He says things like, Jagger is a fag.....they play the songs exactly the same way every time....and it goes on.....I just need something really musically "smart" to say to him and his dead romantic buddies the next time they rip the Stones...HELP!

The Dead...better than the Stones? What a silly question.

1. Keith is the greatest rythym player of all time, period and has more melody in his playing, than that twangy guitar playing by Jerry Garcia ever wished to have.
2. Lyrically speaking the Stones blow the dead away! Everything from rock to country, to reggae to blues, and so on....
3. Charlie is a much tighter drummer than Mickey or Bill or whatever the other guys name is. Their drum solos sound like a bunch of rubbish!! Im from America and i know that word!
4. Ronnie slide playing is great compared to Bob Weir (does Bob play slide? CanBob play slide? )
5. Mick Talyor is better lead than Jerry ever dreamed about being.
6. Bass playing, anybody that leaves the Stones there has a got to be a screw loose, so maybe the Dead wins this.....fu%& it....know they dont.
7. The ROLLING STONES are the GREATEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND EVER!!!!

I'm really surprized that nobody has mentioned the fact that they're two completely different bands with two completely different styles.....the Dead are better than the Stones at what the Dead do...and the Stones are the greatest rock and roll band in the world.........this is like comparing Led Zep and the Beatles......it's apples and oranges...all these people are saying that the Stones guitar players are better than Jerry Garcia.......that's strictly a matter of opinion people. Just about everything you all have listed is just a matter of opinion and I'm sure a Grateful Dead fan would have the exact opposite opinion on those matters. I don't think you can compare these two bands........does anybody want to claim that the Stones are a better jam band than the Dead? Or that the Dead are a better rock and roll band?

I don't even know if it's fair to say that Bill is a better bassist than Phil.....that might be the only area, IMO, that the Dead have the Stones beat! I mean, Charlie > Billy and Mickey, Keith > Bob, well...Jerry was amazing...but I feel that the Stones have that X-factor that nobody (let alone the Dead) has (or will ever have): The Mickster

Plus, everyone knows how annoying the D. Heads are...the Stones have the better (and much less disgusting and annoying) fanbase! Althogh the Dead claim to have the most loyal fanbase..idk....



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-21 07:24 by JJFlash88.

what an inane question jjf...!!!

don't get me started...

i concur with tumbling...you can't compare the two...it is a very subjective opinion and unquantified in any terms...!!!

you are comparing two bands back in their day were the best at what they did...as bill graham said "the dead are the only ones do what they do..." likewise you can say that about the stones too...each in their own way...

just a few points to make here...

1. they were born out of totally various and different ideology...and continued that thru out their careers...!

2. the songwriting...two totally different generes...jagger/richards come straight at you in that rock n roll sense to the point...

hunter...barlow...were very abstract...there's a grey area they liked to work in...they leave it up to you as the listener to interept...


3. the players...you can't compare them at all...!!! no one plays the drums like charlie and that steadiness he has provided...and charlie will never and can not ever play perucussion like billy and mickey do...

ditto with wyman over lesh...a 4 string bass over a 6 string...hmmmm...?

keith, wood, taylor, brian over jerry's lead guitar playing...? or the rhythm nuggets of weir...? give me a break...!!!

why would you want to even entertain a thought on comparison...?

mick is the mick...and for jerry if you would take the time to listen and explore jerry's vocal range and emotional expressions you could just be flat out amazed and blown away...!

4. the equipment...the dead were always on the fore front of the musical technology to present to the fans...with zzz bear and then cantor-jackson and healy...they were always on the edge...

5. the releases...recorded shows...on the road...can you compare the dead's vault and dick's picks releases to anything the stones have put out...?

is there any other band that has been more documented than the dead with the quality work produced by the tapers...?

has there been any other fans...the fan base that has travelled more exstensively than dead heads then and now with rat dog...lesh and friends...?

6. yes the x factor...the stones have theirs and the dead had theirs...!

7. would you rather party at a stones show or a dead tour...? hmmmm...?

you simply can't compare...

how old are you jjf...?

by the way...pigpen blew anything away bluesy that the stones ever did...!!!

pig was the blues...he lived the blues...he died the blues...

don't even fathom to compare...

they both have their own merits...

i'm done now...thanks for hearing me out...

just sit back...relax...and enjoy both their output...

Cheese & chalk, both are brilliant in their respective fields

I'm 20 years old....

"I have a friend that claims he likes the Stoens but constantly bashes them! In your opinions, who is better musically, the Stones or the Grateful Dead, please explain...."

Who is better? Probably the type of person who can listen to all kinds of music or who doesn't think bashing someone else's music makes them a better fan.

Indeed, who is better?

- Stones or The Beatles? I like the Stones but I can't live without Revolver and The White Album
- Stones or The Who? I like the Stones but I can't live without Quardophenia

No, for me it's The Stones and all other good music.

69licks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> what an inane question jjf...!!!
>
> don't get me started...
>
> i concur with tumbling...you can't compare the
> two...it is a very subjective opinion and
> unquantified in any terms...!!!
>
> you are comparing two bands back in their day were
> the best at what they did...as bill graham said
> "the dead are the only ones do what they do..."
> likewise you can say that about the stones
> too...each in their own way...
>
> just a few points to make here...
>
> 1. they were born out of totally various and
> different ideology...and continued that thru out
> their careers...!
>
> 2. the songwriting...two totally different
> generes...jagger/richards come straight at you in
> that rock n roll sense to the point...
>
> hunter...barlow...were very abstract...there's a
> grey area they liked to work in...they leave it up
> to you as the listener to interept...
>
>
> 3. the players...you can't compare them at
> all...!!! no one plays the drums like charlie and
> that steadiness he has provided...and charlie will
> never and can not ever play perucussion like billy
> and mickey do...
>
> ditto with wyman over lesh...a 4 string bass over
> a 6 string...hmmmm...?
>
> keith, wood, taylor, brian over jerry's lead
> guitar playing...? or the rhythm nuggets of
> weir...? give me a break...!!!
>
> why would you want to even entertain a thought on
> comparison...?
>
> mick is the mick...and for jerry if you would take
> the time to listen and explore jerry's vocal range
> and emotional expressions you could just be flat
> out amazed and blown away...!
>
> 4. the equipment...the dead were always on the
> fore front of the musical technology to present to
> the fans...with zzz bear and then cantor-jackson
> and healy...they were always on the edge...
>
> 5. the releases...recorded shows...on the
> road...can you compare the dead's vault and dick's
> picks releases to anything the stones have put
> out...?
>
> is there any other band that has been more
> documented than the dead with the quality work
> produced by the tapers...?
>
> has there been any other fans...the fan base that
> has travelled more exstensively than dead heads
> then and now with rat dog...lesh and friends...?
>
> 6. yes the x factor...the stones have theirs and
> the dead had theirs...!
>
> 7. would you rather party at a stones show or a
> dead tour...? hmmmm...?
>
> you simply can't compare...
>
> how old are you jjf...?
>
> by the way...pigpen blew anything away bluesy that
> the stones ever did...!!!
>
> pig was the blues...he lived the blues...he died
> the blues...
>
> don't even fathom to compare...
>
> they both have their own merits...
>
> i'm done now...thanks for hearing me out...
>
> just sit back...relax...and enjoy both their
> output...



69 Licks.....Pigpen....more bluesy than the Stones..... Do what???? Come on man are you kidding me, seriously. The Stones are a blues band!! Dont get me wrong i like the Dead, but we will have to agree to disagree on that statement.

stonesriff Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 69licks Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> >
> > by the way...pigpen blew anything away bluesy
> that
> > the stones ever did...!!!
> >
> > pig was the blues...he lived the blues...he
> died
> > the blues...
> >
> > don't even fathom to compare...
> >
> > they both have their own merits...
> >
> > i'm done now...thanks for hearing me out...
> >
> > just sit back...relax...and enjoy both their
> > output...
>
>
>
> 69 Licks.....Pigpen....more bluesy than the
> Stones..... Do what???? Come on man are you
> kidding me, seriously. The Stones are a blues
> band!! Dont get me wrong i like the Dead, but we
> will have to agree to disagree on that statement.

yeah........I agree....well agree to disagree....69licks is right that you can't compare the two bands and say that one is better than the other...they're totally different and they do different things..but as far as the Pigpen statement...I love Pigpen's work but I don't think he was any bluesier than the Stones.....I think Pigpen was the member of the Dead who's musical background was most like the Stones.

Dan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I have a friend that claims he likes the Stoens
> but constantly bashes them! In your opinions, who
> is better musically, the Stones or the Grateful
> Dead, please explain...."
>
> Who is better? Probably the type of person who can
> listen to all kinds of music or who doesn't think
> bashing someone else's music makes them a better
> fan.


(CLAPPING)

Seriously. Tell your friend that musical taste is subjective. It's not a pissing contest. People who think that wearing their favourite band as a badge of self-worth really need to get a life.

I'm a musician. And I believe that as far as skill level goes, neither touch the 1969-71 lineup of The Allman Brothers. But that's me. As far as who is better...

Who do YOU like better?

There's your answer.

I know it's not April but this gotta be a joke.

ps...

asking this question in a Stones forum?
You'll get real unbiased answers here.

(drip drip sarcasm)

Look...I'm not looking for serious definate answers...i just wanted some opinions on the skill level of the musicianship of each band....

JJFlash88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look...I'm not looking for serious definate
> answers...i just wanted some opinions on the skill
> level of the musicianship of each band....


again very subjective jjf...

what makes you think there were skills involved with these two bands in question...?

hehehehehehehehe...

JJFlash88 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Look...I'm not looking for serious definate
> answers...i just wanted some opinions on the skill
> level of the musicianship of each band....


......I kind of know how you feel JJFlash88......sometimes people interpret things differently and they'll take something you say and run with it........but really, even speaking of the skill of the musicians, you can't compare the two...because again, they were two totally different bands and they played different styles of music.

Guys, stones and the dead were friends, Jerry said good things on the stones and u know, who's better who's best ? - what the @#$%& means.Keith says there's difference in good and bad music. They are two great band, impossible to say which one the best, got different styles, same roots, different country.
But they are bloody good, for xmas it's not so much polite fight on the net , above all cause it ain't against the Pet Shop Boys, right ?
HAVE A ROLLING XMAS