the beatles vs the rolling stones
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Other music related lounges
Forum Name: General Music Discussions
Forum Description: Discuss and create polls about all types of music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=72350
Printed Date: November 29 2024 at 18:25
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: the beatles vs the rolling stones
Posted By: sydbarrett2010
Subject: the beatles vs the rolling stones
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 12:14
 |
Replies:
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 12:30
|
The Stones had their moments but I'll beat on the Beatles.
------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 12:34
|
Beatles every time for me. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Manuel
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 12:35
| This one's easy: The Beatles!!!! |
Posted By: unclemeat69
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 13:17
|
Last year (I think) there was a talkshow on dutch TV with a discussion about which of the above mentioned band was the better: The Beatle-fans talked about the forwardthinking inventiveness of the Beatles and The Stones-fans talked about the greasy music of the Beatles and how the Stones weren't as greasy. Both sides were pointing at the Beatles and none of them were pointing at the Stones, which I thought was quite funny. So for me, I'll go for the Beatles. ------------- Follow your bliss |
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 13:24
|
Going with the Stones, it has less votes, but could go either way. ------------- https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts |
Posted By: yanch
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 16:15
Beatles, Beatles, Beatles..............you get the idea!
|
Posted By: clarke2001
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 16:20
|
The Beatles by a ------------- |
Posted By: Billy Pilgrim
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 16:30
| The Beatles, I mean really. But Mick and Keith really crack me up though. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 16:39
|
There really is no contest. A band with a gift for melody and tunes that no other rock ensemble has ever had vs the band with the ever-repetitive licks... The Beatles destroy here... ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mushroom Sword
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 17:10
Woah woah woah! That second statement is not true at all. Think of Black Sabbath. All they are is "ever-repetitive licks" and they kick ass! (also was it just a coincidence that you said "licks" while talking about RS?) And Black Sabbath can easily beat bands such as... metallica, and they had more innovation. |
The T wrote:Posted By: Morningrise
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 17:13
| Some time ago I would have voted for the Stones. But I've been more into the Beatles lately, so my vote to them (although I have to say neither the Stones or the Beatles are one of my favorites) |
Posted By: JLocke
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 17:16
|
Now, THIS was easy.
|
Posted By: Bitterblogger
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 19:36
|
The Liverpool lads, certainly.
The Stones have repeated themselves so often, and have been around so long, that their reputation can only erode. Shame, really, since they were masters of the British r&b revival who had their own voice to add.
|
Posted By: Finnforest
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 19:39
| Beatles vs. The Who might have been a closer match. |
Posted By: Chris S
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 19:39
|
Rolling Stones for sheer tenacity! ------------- ...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR] |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: October 18 2010 at 20:05
|
The Beatles will run away with this poll, but the Stones had their proggy moments. Do that Youtube clip above. The Beatles seem to me to be more trend setter and the Stones more trend followers. I give them cred for making a mark in basic rock though, even if it did roll. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: Follix
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 01:06
| Rolling Stones were Beatles farm band, no contest here. |
Posted By: Conor Fynes
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 02:00
| Beatles without a doubt, Rolling Stones do nothing for me. |
Posted By: Gandalff
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 02:04
(I voted for Beatles too...)
------------- A Elbereth Gilthoniel silivren penna míriel o menel aglar elenath! Na-chaered palan-díriel o galadhremmin ennorath, Fanuilos, le linnathon nef aear, sí nef aearon! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 02:13
Better than Gandalf from the crap LOTR. ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Gandalff
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 02:25
------------- A Elbereth Gilthoniel silivren penna míriel o menel aglar elenath! Na-chaered palan-díriel o galadhremmin ennorath, Fanuilos, le linnathon nef aear, sí nef aearon! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 02:28
Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's Monster. What's more classic and iconic than that? And Green Lantern drawn by Alex Ross is pure class!
------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Gandalff
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 03:47
------------- A Elbereth Gilthoniel silivren penna míriel o menel aglar elenath! Na-chaered palan-díriel o galadhremmin ennorath, Fanuilos, le linnathon nef aear, sí nef aearon! |
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 04:09
Balrog fear? ------------- http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Gandalff
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 04:56
|
I killed him in fact. ------------- A Elbereth Gilthoniel silivren penna míriel o menel aglar elenath! Na-chaered palan-díriel o galadhremmin ennorath, Fanuilos, le linnathon nef aear, sí nef aearon! |
Posted By: The-time-is-now
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 05:04
|
The Beatles
-------------  One of my best achievements in life was to find this picture :D |
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: October 19 2010 at 05:09
|
both are better than the other voted Stones, no one did that blackman's blues like they did, made the Beatles look like Hermans Hermits |
Posted By: ferush
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 18:19
Also the Rolling Stones have prog tracks as She's Like A Rainbow, wich Chopin influence is evident. 
|
Posted By: Lozlan
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 19:00
|
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...Stones. (I'm lying!) ------------- Certified Obscure Prog Fart. http://scottjcouturier.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow - The Loose Palace of Exile - My first novel, The Mask of Tamrel, now available on Amazon and Kindle |
Posted By: Anthony H.
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 20:33
|
The Beatles by about a trillion percent. Actually, a centillion percent. -------------  |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 23:03
Probably the best response to date. I think the Stones were the better rock'n'roll band but the Beatles were the better song writers and probably more experimental and innovative. Loved 'em both for different reasons. (I voted for the Beatles if only for them splitting at the right time )------------- 
|
Posted By: crimhead
Date Posted: October 22 2010 at 23:20
| I'm surprised that the Stones are doing so poorly. |
Posted By: Intruder
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 01:36
|
This is one of those questions that define individual personalities, like mods vs. rockers or cat people vs. dog people......it should be one of the first questions people ask each other upon first meeting, sort of a test for compatability.
For me, it's the Beatles from 65-68 and the Stones from 68-73.....how's that for a wishy-washy fence straddling! ------------- I like to feel the suspense when you're certain you know I am there..... |
Posted By: The_Jester
Date Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:02
| The Beatles started the Rolling Stones but they really did better than they. |
Posted By: Jazzywoman
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 02:20
|
I personally dont like either of them, but The Beatles have slightly better music. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Svetonio
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:52
| Brian Jones era The Stones |
Posted By: ten years after
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 06:04
|
Sticky Fingers was a better album than anything the Beatles (or almost anyone else) ever released. Satanic Majesties was more Prog than anything the Beatles did and i think it is a better album than Sgt Pepper.
|
Posted By: someone_else
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 10:43
|
The Beatles by 2000 light years. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Seruum
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 15:37
|
The Beatles. Of course
|
Posted By: Matthew T
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 15:57
|
Beatles of course but the polls from the sixties and seventies were usually neck and neck. Beatles won them though (radio phone polls) ------------- Matt |
Posted By: ferush
Date Posted: October 24 2010 at 20:30
| Also As Tears Go By is a great Stone prog track. |
Posted By: uduwudu
Date Posted: October 25 2010 at 00:34
|
Stones for being earlier than Beatles to do the symphonic prog thing. (As Tears Go By in '64) and the harpsichord for Play With Fire. Sort of like whose is their best prog guy Brian Jones or George Harrison? They both had psychedic albums in 67... Stones made greater rock... but Abbey Road is the most progressive album of both bands... Stones played concerts... performing live is a strong criteria IMHO. I know a good deciding factor. Vote for who decided King Crimson would make a good warm up band! |
Posted By: TODDLER
Date Posted: October 25 2010 at 08:03
| The Beatles for there unique songwriting talents. Their influences of American music and Classical was naturally formulated into a very original way of writing songs. The Rolling Stones for a while did the exact same thing. "Ruby Tuesday" and just loads of songs that revealed progressive elements. "2000 Light Years From Home" and "The Lantern" are among my favorites. Very strange songs. I think that Keith Richards came up with some truly interesting acoustic style chord structures and he has a good ear. He may not be a fancy lead player but, he writes or wrote some pretty melodic and dreamy chord progressions. The Beatles however seemed to be more advanced than the Stones in the area of harmony. Harmony applied to instrumentation and vocals. |
Posted By: kevin4peace
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 02:03
|
Any Beatles album would beat out even Hot Rocks for me. So The Fab Four all the way. ------------- Nothing to say here. Nothing at all. Nothing is easy. |
Posted By: TheClosing
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 02:28
| "The Stones" all day, everyday. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 09:57
|
As much as I love John Lennon, I have to vote Stones here. Beatles made 4 maybe 5 albums I really love, whereas Stones made: 12x4, Out of Our Heads, Between The Buttons, Beggar´s Banquet, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main Street, Goats Head Soup, Sticky Fingers, It´s only Rock n´ Roll, Emotional Rescue and not to forget the live album Get Yer Ya Ya´s Out.
------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: EchidnasArf
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 12:42
|
The Beatles! *in my best Cockney accent* Yeah, hands down Beatles. I do like a lot of Stones though. The Satanic Majesties Request is a gem. ------------- http://didyouseethosebats.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Did You See Those Bats? (a few songs from my band's live radio show) 
|
Posted By: Horizons
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 12:44
|
Rolling Stones. The Beatles bore me now.
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 12:47
|
I'm not super into the Beatles but I despise the Rolling Stones. Has there ever been such generic music? In fact it's stuff like that that makes me so aggravated when people bi%$$ about how bad modern mainstream music is (and it is certainly), because there's always been recycled and unoriginal pop music blaring over the radio, repeating the same three chords endlessly. Though like I said, I'm not to into the Beatles either, nor am I into their overly blown impact on music. I hate pop music ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: EchidnasArf
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 13:09
|
Not to go off topic here, but The Rolling Stones certainly were not
generic for their time. Modern pop rock is a derivative of stuff like
the Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc.. That's why you
think the Rolling Stones sound generic, but you've got it backwards.
------------- http://didyouseethosebats.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow - Did You See Those Bats? (a few songs from my band's live radio show)
|
Posted By: esky
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 14:36
|
The Stones could be wonderfully proggy at times (in a dark way) while the Beatles seemed always cheerful in how they conducted themselves (with the exception of Strawberry Fields', 'Walrus, and Blue Jay Way, among a few others). Pete Townsend once remarked that he and many other Englishmen laughed at the Fabs when they first came on the scene, while the Stones appeared to be the real deal from the get go. I'll still go with Los Beatles. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 05 2011 at 14:39
-------------
|
Posted By: Fox On The Rocks
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 00:00
|
The Beatles by light years.
------------- 
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 00:07
A friendly suggestion: give Satanic Majesties Request a good shot, MIGHT click. They are not really all that generic but they have simply proved much easier to imitate than the Beatles. Only the purring vocals and lush feel of Beatles are easily imitated by all these Britpop bands, their sophistication and mastery of composition is beyond the grasp of most. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 11:22
| Well, isn't that a beaut? Formally, I prefer the Beatles. But when ya get right down to it, I place Banquet, Bleed, Exile, and Fingers rather equally with Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, and White Album. The only big difference is that Abbey Road (my favorite Beatles) thinly beats out Sticky Fingers (my favorite Stones). Both are quite high on my list, but if I were to be honest with myself I'd go Beatles-o. |
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 11:37
I would admit that Keef and Co haven't issued anything but drivel for well over 30 years but if such pivotal albums as Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Get Your Ya Ya's Out, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street apparently leave you completely unmoved, you do hate pop music. Just like Dylan, Floyd, the Kinks and the Beatles, the Stones invented many of the clichés that you now profess to despise when regurgitated by other artists. (best to check yer pulse while yer at it and take a mother's little helper )-------------
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 11:41
| Here, here! Though I don't ADORE Exile, but I greatly enjoy their albums beginning with Aftermath, ending with Goat's Head Soup. Angie! ANNNNNNNNGIEEEE dumdumdumdumdumdum. I'll just take this poll as an excuse to say how much i like both bands. (not worship or idolize, golly). |
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 11:53
It's not prog, it's pop but it is indeed good. ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">  
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 12:22
-------------
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 12:27
| That confuses me. You Can't Always Get What You Want sounds totally identifiable from Gimmie Shelter, Country Honk, Angie, Paint it Black, Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sympathy for the Devil, Wild Horses, etc. etc. Sure, Exile On Main St. is too much for me, but... |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:13
False, this attitude comes from people feel the need to divide the line between blues and rock. The Rolling Stones WERE generic for their time, they just broke through when the others didn't. And I'm getting out of here, I'm not defending the Beatles anymore, i'm usually on the other side of that argument. Point in case, classical music and jazz had already existed, making three chord music absolutely worthless. If you're going three chord at least go blues and have some emotion and spontaneity. But for the same reason I can't listen to straight blues much either anymore...too repetitive. But thats better than repetitive with horrible vocal concepts, not to mention that nobody in these bands did anything technically impressive. I don't look for technical ability (i listen to jam bands and ambient most of the time, so certainly not), but seeing people play such repetitive and simple music just aggravates me beyond belief. As I said, if they started music in general with simple music it'd be acceptable....but nope. And before I get attacked, I've already stated that I simply hate pop music. I know what the lyrical concept is going into it (because it's almost always the same) and the minute I hear the song I know exactly where its going....because it's going to repeat. I can handle pop qualities, like poppier Zappa and stuff like Caravan, but thats because at least it brings something remotely original to the table. I just can't believe people talk so much about these people who "invented rock and roll". Yeah they invented it depending on where and when you put the divider, but it was nothing that hadn't been done before.
------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:33
|
^ You're so damn objective and factual and you base everything you say on truthful analysis. Pop music is objectively, scientifically, the worst genre, and your music tastes are the apex of all rational thought, you god-king of all. My favorite fact from you? 'making three chord music absolutely worthless'. I'm sure that's an obscure Einstein quote, huh? Another? 'horrible vocal concepts' - which I read in the latest edition of my Physics textbook. I love your indisputably intrinsic universal truths.
|
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:37
|
Haha. Thanks. Maybe I should write a blog and you should subscribe. I didn't feel the need to state subjectivity seeing as this is a discussion forum and not somewhere where we're reading facts. Since people keep going on about it, what did the Beatles and Stones REALLY do? State it. And I mean from a musical standpoint, I don't really care about success rates ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:41
| I don't care about 'doing' or 'success rates'. I only ONLY care about how hard a song hits my heart. Originality I don't care one tit for. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:51
|
So now are you implying that I have to hold to what YOU ONLY care for? This is a discussion thread, not a praise the hell out of X thread, so get the hell off my ass for not looking for the same standards in music. I've realized that theres enough music out there to get the emotional satisfaction with the originality, and over my entire life of listening to music have gotten sick of recycled ABAB formats. Cool, listen to what you want to, and I'll listen to what I want to. And I'll make sure I post only things that everybody will agree with, because thats the purpose here. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:54
|
When did I ever say you had to hold to what only I care for? Why take me in such a serious manner? As for 'being agreeable', I'm the guy that wrote such a distasteful Iron Maiden review (gosh I hated Final Frontier) that it got me kicked out of prog reviewer status. Do what makes you happy in your heart of hearts, man. That's all I want from you. |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 14:59
|
Look, I'm just getting annoyed when you keep implying my "passing things off as universal truths" because I defend my arguments. The same I wish people everywhere would actually defend their arguments rather than just bickering back and fourth as we are. This is the kind of garbage that makes me leave boards for months at a time. I don't have any interest in this arguing with people about nothing when I don't even know them, I want to talk about music. However, I'm ill right now and am not going to work and am incapable of physically doing much, so as for now I'm lingering quite a bit. But no more ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Catcher10
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 15:01
|
The Rolling Stones wrote sooooooooooooooooooooo many more better songs than the "Fab" Four did. The Stones are at the top of the list for the definition of rock n roll.......I mean really people! -------------   
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 15:05
I'm the last person you need to let offend you, because my offense will be of least import. I'm not some dissenting, arrogant dickface whose only claim to life is touting some inanity about objectivity in a goddamn rock music forum. What happened that causes you be unable to physically do much?
|
Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 15:18
|
I am with the Beatles...
------------- http://theprogressiveweb.blogspot.de" rel="nofollow - Visit me in Second Life to talk about music. |
Posted By: Guldbamsen
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 15:26
Come on! Don´t be like that! We´ve got some sympathy for the devil over here. ------------- “The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.” - Douglas Adams |
Posted By: himtroy
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 15:33
|
"Dissenting, arrogant, dickface"seemed a bit unnecessary as I never verbally attacked you, only argued against your arguments." But whatever, I'm done being attacked by someone I don't and never will know on a forum that I come to to talk about music. So begins another hiatus of message boards, which leaves busting out the Sega Genesis as my other option. ------------- Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell? I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance. |
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 15:39
| I'm not attacking you and I didn't say you were attacking me. I was indirectly calling myself what would seem to be a dissenting dickface. I was refuting my previous manner of conduct. Gawsh, I friggin' hate the difficulty in communicating with another human being through text. I'm sincerely attempting to show concern, here. |
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 16:03
|
The Beatles were ground-breaking, and factoring in the 6 or 7 year gap between them and prog bands, I would say they actually were more progressive! Eleanor Rigby, A Day in the Life, Norwegian Wood, Mr Kite...... very innovative stuff. And isn't the Abbey Road suite technically the second ever side-long suite? I love the Stones but this is one of the most pointless, yet popular, arguments about 20th century pop music. By the way, you two arguers, take a look at my sig down there! ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow"> 
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 16:09
| I'm not arguing! I sincerely want for the guy to only experience happiness and joy in his heart at all times. I'm not the a****le I make myself out to be. |
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 16:30
|
Of course, you are the a****le others make you out to be. ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: EatThatPhonebook
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 16:31
between the two, Beatles, but RS aren't getting any justice on this poll  ------------- 
|
Posted By: silverpot
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 16:32
Funny, but this is the same argumentation as we had in the school yard in the mid sixties.  However, we did agree on one thing; The Beatles were best appreciated if you just wanted to sit still and listen to music, while The Stones made you want to dance. I still play Let It Bleed and Exile when I'm cleaning windows.  |
Posted By: Formentera Lady
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 17:24
hehe ...  ------------- http://theprogressiveweb.blogspot.de" rel="nofollow - Visit me in Second Life to talk about music. |
Posted By: Slartibartfast
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 17:27
It's a which one do you like the most poll. ------------- Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
Posted By: dr prog
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 17:53
Beatles were good around 66-68. The stones were just crap all round 
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 18:10
. And I also said there were a few exceptions, with some of the ones you mentioned among them. I've only heard like 40 RS songs, and only 5 or 6 are distinguishable. To me, not Alitare of course  -------------
|
Posted By: ExittheLemming
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 20:19
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  -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 21:59
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. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 23:12
-------------
|
Posted By: The Truth
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 23:15
|
All I can say is... PLEASED TO MEET YOU HOPE YOU GUESS MY NAME ------------- http://blindpoetrecords.bandcamp.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 23:17
|
Truth, that -------------
|
Posted By: rogerthat
Date Posted: August 06 2011 at 23:45
Which is why I said you could maybe give Satanic Majesties a shot where they did try a few things. I certainly don't see what is so generic about, for instance, She's A Rainbow. I wonder if the grunge bands of today would be able to craft something that elegant. Your views on them are similar to as if someone had only heard pre-Rubber Soul Beatles and wondered what all the fuss was about. I definitely agree that they can't hold a candle to Beatles but that's fine because not many can anyway. |
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 07 2011 at 08:46
^Maybe I will give that album a try Sir, maybe I will  -------------
|
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: August 07 2011 at 10:47
|
I take the Stones album you own is 'Forty Licks', given the number of their songs that you've heard. If so, 'She's a Rainbow' is actually on that compilation. A bit of trivia: John Paul Jones arranged the strings on it! ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Alitare
Date Posted: August 07 2011 at 12:52
| Even I don't think the Stones have 40 songs I like. Maybe twenty, tops. |
Posted By: AbrahamSapien
Date Posted: August 07 2011 at 12:53
|
Posted By: Bad2Bone
Date Posted: August 07 2011 at 12:55
|
irespect them both due theor dramatical input in music history though both of them do not toch my soul really
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: August 07 2011 at 23:26
|
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 never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |
Posted By: giselle
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 05:25
| The Beatles; I like the Stones, but creatively (and in sense of importance) this is no contest. |
Posted By: Zargus
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 07:16
|
Well i go with the beatles, but i sure like some stones too, both bands hade a run of some realy great albums. ------------- 
|
Posted By: thehallway
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 09:18
I don't think you're infamous for anything...... I don't know who the hell you are! ------------- http://www.thefreshfilmblog.com/" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: The T
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 09:45
|
-------------
|
Posted By: tszirmay
Date Posted: August 08 2011 at 11:08
 ------------- I never post anything anywhere without doing more than basic research, often in depth. |