the beatles vs the rolling stones

Actually Syd and his mate DG were big Stones fans.

From what concert material I've heard (Got Loive If You Want It) and whatever turned up as footage by the Beatles showed they may not have been the best live. But for a very good reason. They did not have PAs with foldbacks and monitors. In the excitement of a Stones or Beatles gig they could not hear themselves.

There may be very ambitious material by the Stones. Brian Jones was central to all the varying textures (We Love You), string arrangement ideas (As Tears Go BY in '65) as well as his blues band then being his band. I think there was an album of Keith-less Morroccan music released as a Jones 'solo' album. But maybe my memory fades away... ;)

There was also an album of Stones music arranged for jazz by Joe Pass. (Not seen or heard it so can't comment.)

Anyway these were a bunch of young guys in a band that probably had yet to get to their potential (Beggars Banquet to Exile inclusive) by the Stones and Revolver to Abbey Road by The Beatles... who probably should have played live and kept going until Band On The Run then stopped. I did read a comment by John Lennon when asked how the Beatles would sound in 1973 he indicated that album.

I do wish that Clapton had Harrison help out his freinds in Blind Faith. Then that band might have achieved more with someone to help out Winwood with the writing.

The Dark Elf wrote: The difference between the two is simple: The Beatles knew when to quit, while they were at the top of their game; The Stones, however, dragged their schtick out over several ragged decades, looking like mummified clones of their 60s incarnations. Their last great album was Exile on Main Street, and most of the rest of their 70s material is painful to listen to (Mick Jagger singing falsetto over disco tunes was dreadful back then). The only good thing lately is that Keith Richards didn't need makeup or a wardrobe change for Pirates of the Caribbean.

sydbarrett2010 wrote: uduwudu wrote: sydbarrett2010 wrote: let me tell you something right here : The beatles and The rolling Stones Are Two of the worst bands ever Exactly how are the the worst? There are two ways of criticsing anything. 1. You do not like it. This is an opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 2. Say something is good, great, worst, bad etc needs to be justified. It's a judgment and needs evidence. Opinion is not evidence. How are song then moves yu or not takes us to 1. (above). Imagine if someone said that you (anyone not just Syd Barett2010) is the worst ever. Surely that would require some backing up. Then so do statements like this on anyone else - The Beatles and The Stones in this case. So. What makes them the worst. Or the best. Objectivty. Please. first one for me in my opinion of course they have some great songs but the rest are sh*tty pop dance songs i dont see how anyone can be influenced by any of these two

You don't hear the parallels between Something and Brain Damage, really?  Or You Never Give Me Your Money and Starship Trooper? I could go on.  It's advisable not to make sweeping statements that purport as fact about bands you don't seem to be very well acquainted with.

uduwudu wrote: sydbarrett2010 wrote: let me tell you something right here : The beatles and The rolling Stones Are Two of the worst bands ever Exactly how are the the worst? There are two ways of criticsing anything. 1. You do not like it. This is an opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 2. Say something is good, great, worst, bad etc needs to be justified. It's a judgment and needs evidence. Opinion is not evidence. How are song then moves yu or not takes us to 1. (above). Imagine if someone said that you (anyone not just Syd Barett2010) is the worst ever. Surely that would require some backing up. Then so do statements like this on anyone else - The Beatles and The Stones in this case. So. What makes them the worst. Or the best. Objectivty. Please.

first one for me in my opinion
of course they have some great songs but the rest are sh*tty pop dance songs i dont see how anyone can be influenced by any of these two

The difference between the two is simple: The Beatles knew when to quit, while they were at the top of their game; The Stones, however, dragged their schtick out over several ragged decades, looking like mummified clones of their 60s incarnations. Their last great album was Exile on Main Street, and most of the rest of their 70s material is painful to listen to (Mick Jagger singing falsetto over disco tunes was dreadful back then). The only good thing lately is that Keith Richards didn't need makeup or a wardrobe change for Pirates of the Caribbean.

Absolutely so. The London Years 3 CD compilation states exactly how good the strolling bones were at tunes. As Years Go By is a great strings arrangement on quite an exquisite little number. Every song's a winner on that compilation. Not so sure of the albums - 12 x 5 , Aftermath and then the late 60s early 70s sets around Get Yer Yas Out shows the Stones as a rock, country, blues and soul band (check Exile) par excellance. This is where (IMHO) the Beatles lost out. Had they toured (with the newly developed PA system in 1969) then things may be very, very different The Stones toured, The Beatles broke up insttead of doing wh at they shpuld have been doing and playing.

Then again had Led Zeppelin appeared at Woodstock instead of missing it as a amangement decsion to not disappear amomg the stars then one wonders how that event might have turned out. Given that it was all about Hendrix (though Richie Havens, CSN and Y and The Who may have been the best performances) but Zeppelin were touring all those festivals and Woodstock was only one. Oh and the Jeff Beck Group were around as well...

But as for tunes and albums... The Beatles had Abbey Road. Now, had they toured with the new technology (and an excellent abum) then who knows what might have been. As it happens the Stones had Altamont and Zeppelin their second album and they were only warming up. King Crimson were neralry on the point of breaking up then instead of having a break but rock and pop groups had to make or break not rest and recuperate...

And then there was Yes.

The T wrote: Also, The Rolling Stones FAIL at melody. The Beatles have been almost unsurpassed In the rock world for melody.

Uh, what about:

Ruby Tuesday
2000 Man
Live With Me
Rocks Off
No Expectations
Under My Thumb
Let's Spend The Night Together
The Lantern
Backstreet Girl
Something Happened To Me Yesterday
Lady Jane
Sitting On A Fence
Jumping Jack Flash
Dandelion
Have You Seen Your Mother Baby, Standing In The Shadow?
Tumbling Dice
Wild Horses
etc. etc. etc.

But, that's just me. Personally, I've never been into the Beatles vs. Stones thing.

thehallway wrote: rogerthat wrote: thehallway wrote:   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 don't think length of a composition or the specific time sigs used are at all as important as they are sometimes made out to be. I am usually more interested in how a drastic change in the musical landscape via change of time sig or a key modulation manages to sound so intuitive in some compositions and so jarring in some others.  Long pieces, in the right hands, give more scope to do interesting things compositionally and that's all; length without intrigue is an elephant. I'd take You Never Give Me Your Money over the whole Moonmadness album, but that's Beatles for you. A Day in the Life = Best 5 minutes of my life!

   Such an incredible composition!  I wonder that even THAT could apparently not convince Barking Weasel that Beatles are more than just a silly boyband.

rogerthat wrote: thehallway wrote:   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 don't think length of a composition or the specific time sigs used are at all as important as they are sometimes made out to be. I am usually more interested in how a drastic change in the musical landscape via change of time sig or a key modulation manages to sound so intuitive in some compositions and so jarring in some others.  Long pieces, in the right hands, give more scope to do interesting things compositionally and that's all; length without intrigue is an elephant. I'd take You Never Give Me Your Money over the whole Moonmadness album, but that's Beatles for you.

A Day in the Life = Best 5 minutes of my life!

thehallway wrote:   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.

Edited by rogerthat - August 12 2011 at 04:12