the beatles vs the rolling stones

Beatles were good around 66-68. The stones were just crap all round

The T wrote: I said all RS songs sound the same to me . And I also said there were a few exceptions. I've only heard like 40 RS songs, and only 5 or 6 are distinguishable.

Although I don't always agree with you I usually think you sincere, but this?

If we restrict ourselves to some of the 'famous' ones that everyone and their dog has heard (even yours) say,  Brown Sugar, Angie, Sympathy For the Devil, Paint it Black, Get Off of My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Ruby Tuesday, Satisfaction, the Last Time, Under My Thumb, Let's Spend the Night Together and Honky Tonk Women and you heard them all back to back: you can't tell these songs apart?

Like all bands with a lengthy career playing music that is relatively simple both harmonically and structurally, the Stones have been guilty of repeating themselves yes (but only post Some Girls in my book has it been lazy and complacent drivel since)

I suspect that what you're really describing is someone like (gulp) Status Quo

rogerthat wrote: ExittheLemming wrote: The T wrote: I said all RS songs sound the same to me . And I also said there were a few exceptions. I've only heard like 40 RS songs, and only 5 or 6 are distinguishable. Although I don't always agree with you I usually think you sincere, but this? If we restrict ourselves to some of the 'famous' ones that everyone and their dog has heard (even yours) say,  Brown Sugar, Angie, Sympathy For the Devil, Paint it Black, Get Off of My Cloud, 19th Nervous Breakdown, Ruby Tuesday, Satisfaction, the Last Time, Under My Thumb, Let's Spend the Night Together and Honky Tonk Women and you heard them all back to back: you can't tell these songs apart?Like all bands with a lengthy career playing music that is relatively simple both harmonically and structurally, the Stones have been guilty of repeating themselves yes (but only post Some Girls in my book has it been lazy and complacent drivel since)I suspect that what you're really describing is someone like (gulp) Status Quo Yeah, certainly in rock terms, they are not so indistinguishable.  Definitely don't have as much variation as Beatles but not many do, so that's ok.

Look, songs like Paint it Black or Satisfaction are definitely recognizable. But most of the ones I've heard (again, I haven't heard more than 40) have same rhythms, same tempos, almost the same type of vocals (well, obviously), little if any melody (they just suffer compared to the Beatles) and the same licks and riffs with some variation. Believe me, I'm being sincere. I have given them some time (though, I have to say, they tire me too quickly so I haven't given them more than 6 listens per song... But please, for three-chord, three-minute, similar songs that should suffice, it's POP rock after all, it's supposed to be immediate, quick) but they have failed to capture me. Now, I've said before that I don't think The Beatles are the holy grail of rock music (though some songs really reach that level), but I can't compare what the Liverpool guys gave us in Rubber Soul, Revolver or Abbey Road (and scattered songs in all other albums) with the big pile of boredom that FOR ME Jagger and co have meant.

Edited by The T - August 06 2011 at 23:13

Truth, that

^Maybe I will give that album a try Sir, maybe I will

Even I don't think the Stones have 40 songs I like. Maybe twenty, tops.

 irespect them both due theor dramatical input in music history

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

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!

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