I think both bands are the greatest at what they do. There are a lot myths about both bands if you know rock music are easily dismissed. The Rolling Stones had some great pop songs that are not really rock influenced like "Tears Go By" or "Ruby Tuesday". It's just great pop songs and on par with The Beatles IMO. The Beatles on the hand could out-rock the Rolling Stone
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteSilver Dagger For me Play With Fire is a really important song in the Stones history - for several reasons. For starters it is without doubt the first 'English' inspired song the band ever wrote. Until then the band were immersed in blues and r'n'b Americana. It is also the first time that Mick got personal in his lyric writing, quite probably inspired by Dylan. The
Forum: Tell Me

Quotebuffalo7478 Beatles were fun, innocent, non-threatening still at this point. Mick and Keith were in a much darker place...they were the people your parents warned you about, but you were drawn to. GREAT song, haunting and I agree with the other posters that 'less is more'. Perfectly arranged. This is one of The Rolling Stones most underrated songs IMO. Nice haunting melody and
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteRollingFreak The bottom line is very simple: The Beatles are so much more influential and innovative than the Stones. I like the Stones better (although both groups are the upper echelon that you almost can't rate), but listen to something off Abbey Road or any of their albums. The arrangements are incredible and actually more incredible to listen with on their own. They were just of
Forum: Tell Me

I have always said I think The Rolling Stones output from 1965 to Exile On Main Street is one of rock/pop music greatest runs in terms of prolific songwriting and creativity.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotekeefriffhard4life Quotelandis Quotekeefriffhard4life Quotetreaclefingers QuoteHappy Jack Quotestonehearted Quotelandis QuoteHappy Jack Quotestonehearted Quoteash The Yardbirds may have used a sitar a few months before the beatles but the attempt went unreleased till the 80s so they may not have heard it. Yes, the sitar version of Heart Full of Soul was recorded on April 20, but could not b
Forum: Tell Me

Quotekeefriffhard4life Quotetreaclefingers QuoteHappy Jack Quotestonehearted Quotelandis QuoteHappy Jack Quotestonehearted Quoteash The Yardbirds may have used a sitar a few months before the beatles but the attempt went unreleased till the 80s so they may not have heard it. Yes, the sitar version of Heart Full of Soul was recorded on April 20, but could not be played live to an audience that w
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteHappy Jack Quotestonehearted Quoteash The Yardbirds may have used a sitar a few months before the beatles but the attempt went unreleased till the 80s so they may not have heard it. Yes, the sitar version of Heart Full of Soul was recorded on April 20, but could not be played live to an audience that way so Jeff Beck recorded a second version employing a fuzz box with a tone blender. The s
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteThe Ghost Of Good taste Daltrey was indeed very versatile, keef - maybe the only one I would consider besides Morrison as "best vocalist" based on my criterion...and yes, treacle, had Morrison lived the range would've undoubtedly narrowed (as it had already begun to do by the time of LA Woman), but, luckily, all we have is prime/close to prime Morrison to listen to; and that M
Forum: Tell Me

QuoteThe Ghost Of Good taste Quotetreaclefingers Best vocalist of all time, for me, either Bobby Darin or Bobby Dylan. Singer...hmmm...that's tougher. Always liked early Elvis. Best (rock n roll) vocalist - Jim Morrison. Morrison could sing Brown Sugar, Mick could never sing Five To One. Morrison could sing Come Together, Lennon could never have sung Peace Frog. Morrison could&#
Forum: Tell Me

The Rolling Stones had a great feel for rock and roll and I really prefer their almost Americana approach to the amped-up IMO lack of songwriting ability that is Led Zeppelin. For example Let It Bleed is such great album in terms of melding pop music with a roots approach.The Rolling Stones were actually were an underrated psychedelic band also.
Forum: Tell Me

Quotemtaylor Quotewhitem8 Quotemtaylor QuoteCome On Paul vs Bill on bass 1 - 0 John vs Keith on Rhythm 1 - 1 Ringo vs Charlie on drums 1 - 1 George vs Brian on guitar 1 - 1 John vs Mick on vocal 1 - 1 Paul vs Mick on vocal 1 - 1 George vs Mick on vocal 1 - 2 George vs Keith on back-up vocal 1 - 3 John vs Brian on harp 1 - 3 Lennon/McCartney vs Jagger/Richards 2 - 3 Harrison vs Wyman
Forum: Tell Me

Why wouldn't The Stones put that in their set list? What a great fusion of rock and disco. Also it's one of their most played songs.
Forum: Tell Me

That's a great one "Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Standing In The Shadow? Every time I hear the horn section it makes me think if they were listening to "Got To Get You Into My Life". The nasty fuzz guitars are great which makes it different than The Beatles track though.
Forum: Tell Me

The Beatles had better vocals, were more innovative, better songwriters, more versatile musically and basically more influential. The only thing The Rolling Stones were better than The Beatles were probably doing the Chuck Berry thing. If The Stones combined the funkiness, hard edge and blistering fast pace rock fusion of "Everybody Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey" then te
Forum: Tell Me

I love the Stones but I remember reading Keith saying The Beatles opened the doors for them to make it in America. The Beatles destroyed the basic 3 chord structure of blues-based rock bands Their level of music influence is on another level. "Tomorrow Never Knows." is probably a sampled/break beat song years before anyone else.The drum part is a four-bar tape loop. "I Want Y
Forum: Tell Me