the beatles vs the rolling stones

rogerthat wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: I but to dismiss one of the most successful bands of all time during their peak years of say 1968 to 1973 is tantamount to denying rock and roll has any vestige of merit whatsoever. Does 'good' rock and roll have to encompass more than three chords to touch and move people in a profound way?      Truthfully, most regular, straight up rock music doesn't do much emotionally for me. Yes, it packs in a lot of energy and is thoroughly enjoyable but I differentiate the entertaining from the emotional.  Emotional is that which lingers and haunts.  The quintessence of rock has more to do with energy than emotion.  I'd argue the peak years of mid 60s to mid 70s produced great artists who happened to play rock rather than rock by itself accounting for the emotional resonance of such bands.   ExittheLemming wrote: When did emotive become arithmetic? Great rock/pop music is visceral so it talks to and is answered by the body (Keef said it best  - music for the neck down)     Yes, and doesn't work for me really. I don't have to shake a leg to know a song touched me.    ExittheLemming wrote: Just take a step back and listen to yourselves and you will hear the very reasons that all those lazy stereotypes are hurled with contemptuous ease at Proggers to your eternal dismay i.e. complexity trumps simplicity, precedence nullifies originality (you want Zep to re-write the immutable gravity of blues harmonies?) other worldly is better than this worldly?      Ok, I agree with much of this but simplicity by itself doesn't have a lot going for it and not any more than complexity by itself.  Crafting something special is above and beyond these considerations.

I agree with both of you. The Stones don't need to be very complex at all to achieve their goal, which is to get people dancing (if we're generalising here). A band like Yes obviously had a goal that was more difficult to achieve when they wrote Tales From Topographic Oceans, not that their goal is any less valid. A complex, spiritual goal requires complex music to get across. It's not better, it's just different. 

I think that explains why some music is complex and some music is simple, but it doesn't explain why either are good or bad..... that's all down to execution. If The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway was a 12-bar boogie woogie, would it be as touching, as serious, or as good? Would Let It Bleed have been any better if every song on it was fifteen minutes long and full of synthesizers and awkward time signatures? Obviously not.

I have been touched by three-chord songs and three-hundred chord songs....... and neither work just with my head or just with my heart (or just with my feet, for that matter!).

The T wrote: For me, rock has gained a lot of emotionality in the decades after the 60s. That rock was dead in terms of emotion for me. The Rolling Stones couldn't be less moving if they want to. Newer rock has been able to move me more than older one (with exceptions of course).

I would personally not want to generalize on that, it all depends on the bands one compares.  Beatles have truckloads of awesome songs that way like Because, Across the Universe, In My Life and many more.  On the other hand, Grace surely challenges many a famed rock album for sheer emotional intensity. And another thing, when I refer to the period of the 60s through to the mid 70s as rock, I tend to include prog as a part of that.


Edited by rogerthat - August 11 2011 at 11:44

ExittheLemming wrote: I but to dismiss one of the most successful bands of all time during their peak years of say 1968 to 1973 is tantamount to denying rock and roll has any vestige of merit whatsoever. Does 'good' rock and roll have to encompass more than three chords to touch and move people in a profound way?

I can't believe some of the posts on this thread, I mean Ok loads of folks probably just can't stomach the Stones and I do respect your aesthetic sensibilities but to dismiss one of the most successful bands of all time during their peak years of say 1968 to 1973 is tantamount to denying rock and roll has any vestige of merit whatsoever. Does 'good' rock and roll have to encompass more than three chords to touch and move people in a profound way? When did emotive become arithmetic? Great rock/pop music is visceral so it talks to and is answered by the body (Keef said it best  - music for the neck down) Just take a step back and listen to yourselves and you will hear the very reasons that all those lazy stereotypes are hurled with contemptuous ease at Proggers to your eternal dismay i.e. complexity trumps simplicity, precedence nullifies originality (you want Zep to re-write the immutable gravity of blues harmonies?) other worldly is better than this worldly?

Apologies, I've had a bad day and work and am even grumpier than usual (bit still sincere)

I love the Beatles and the Stones but am not naive enough to compare them as belonging to a shared or competing aesthetic.

Every rock or pop band that has ever existed owes it all to the Beatles - and that includes the Rolling Stones.

Slaughternalia wrote: sydbarrett2010 wrote: let me tell you something right here : The beatles and The rolling Stones Are Two of the worst bands ever I'm getting dangerous readings of edgy cool guy here I know you're trolling, but I there are people who actually believe this

i really believe in that

sydbarrett2010 wrote: let me tell you something right here : The beatles and The rolling Stones Are Two of the worst bands ever

thehallway wrote: tszirmay wrote: I am infamous for my severe dislike of the Rolling Bones, the most revolting marketing scam in music , whose last decent album was back when Brian Jones (the real genius behind the band, IMHO) was getting the glamour twins upset by the swimming pool. Once he was drowned, the output has been repulsive .Primitive drivel, poor musicianship, living OFF the past and basically depraved personas  etc..... Enough said. And I do expect a backlash from fans, I stand by my opinion but frankly , "you can guess my name" I don't think you're infamous for anything...... I don't know who the hell you are!

Neither do I

tszirmay wrote: I am infamous for my severe dislike of the Rolling Bones, the most revolting marketing scam in music , whose last decent album was back when Brian Jones (the real genius behind the band, IMHO) was getting the glamour twins upset by the swimming pool. Once he was drowned, the output has been repulsive .Primitive drivel, poor musicianship, living OFF the past and basically depraved personas  etc..... Enough said. And I do expect a backlash from fans, I stand by my opinion but frankly , "you can guess my name"

I don't think you're infamous for anything...... I don't know who the hell you are!

The Beatles; I like the Stones, but creatively (and in sense of importance) this is no contest.