Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Beatles vs Stones

Page: (1)2

08:19 / 19.02.02

Who and why?

08:52 / 19.02.02

pineapples and grapefruits

08:52 / 19.02.02

is this the time for my "john lennon - art school ponce" routine?

A

08:52 / 19.02.02

Now this is my kind of topic.

The Beatles are much, much better than the Rolling Stones. They:
-had better tunes
-had more style
-were much more charming and witty
-made teenage girls scream louder
-rarely attempted to play the blues (being British and all)
-were able to continually change their style without becoming crap

and, perhaps most importantly-

-they knew when to quit

for some reason, whatever charm the Rolling Stones hold has always escaped me. I mean everyone swears that they were great, but i just don't see it. I like damn near every other British rock'n'roll group from the 60's and i like the blues the Stones were influenced by, but i just don't seem to be able to dig the Stones. I'm keeping an open mind, but i just fail to see what was so great about them. I'm sure i'm probably wrong, and they are actually good, so can someone please explain?

Regrettable Juvenilia

08:52 / 19.02.02

Stones. It has to be the Stones. For 'Satisfaction', 'Let's Spend The Night Together', 'Paint It Black', 'She's A Rainbow', Performance, Mick's lips, Keef's keefness, and the awesome run of albums that was Beggar's Banquet / Let It Bleed / Sticky Fingers / Exile On Main Street.

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

The Natural Way

08:52 / 19.02.02

But the Stones' stuff...it's all a bit samey: country, or straight up rock 'n' rolly business.

The Beatles were much better re the novelty factor. And they had soooo many good tunes.

Jack The Bodiless

08:52 / 19.02.02

Not forgetting 'Gimme Shelter', 'Sympathy For The Devil', 'Wild Horses', 'Time Is On My Side', and the sublime 'You Can't Always Get What You Want', amongst others. The Stones were wonderfull.

The Beatles had some great songs, but the hype, then and now, is pretty wearying. Best band ever my left testicle...

08:52 / 19.02.02

I'm with Flyboy 100%, not forgetting 'Brown Sugar', 'Under My Thumb' 'Mother's Little Helper' etc etc.

'sticky Fingers' and 'Exile on Main St.' are also both better (not cleverer) albums than The White Album, Revolver or Sgt. Pepper.

I do a fucking mean Mick impression too. May show it to you when I eventually come to a meet if am fuct enough ...

08:52 / 19.02.02

Pah. Beatles all the way. Their voices were sweeter, their tunes were neater, they practically invented several musical genres.
I like the Stones a great deal. But the Beatles are gear.

10:04 / 19.02.02

quote:Originally posted by BizCo:
Their voices were sweeter, their tunes were neater,

You've just proved why it's got to be the Stones. This is rock and roll we're talking about not Barber Shop fucking Quartet.

PS Did you hear that the remaining Beatles are going to release an album? I've heard it's drum and bass ...

10:07 / 19.02.02

Rock n' Roll? Feh. The Stones started out as an imitation of the Beatles, then clipped on the rawk personas for publicity reasons. Oh, and to get chicks. Oasis Mark I, anyone?

10:13 / 19.02.02

Imitation Beatles? How much do you know about the history of both bands? You will find that the roots of the Beatles were entrenched in American white rocker's music, whereas The Stones were fans of the great blues artists- Muddy Waters (hence their name), Howlin' Wolf etc. etc. etc.

10:16 / 19.02.02

Where's the front with the beatles, where's the swagger? They may be the most cutting edge innovatiuve band of all time, but they were also fairly anemic on occasion- The Stones were exciting, irreverent, dangerous. And they still rock in concert. Anyone seen paul play recently?

If The Stones are Oasis mk 1, then the Beatles were Take That mk 1 ...

10:20 / 19.02.02

Stones Biog

quote:The Rolling Stones, though different in direction and purpose, fell into The Beatles shadow. While the bands had a healthy rivalry the public took it further. Girls loved the Beatles and the guys liked the Rolling Stones. The Beatles were far more popular than the Stones. This caused Mick Jagger to drive hard to be as good as the Fab Four. It was a useless battle. The Stones on their best day could not match the talent, charm and confidence of The Beatles. For one, The Beatles had been together far longer than The Stones. Lennon & McCartney had started writing songs together almost from the start. Jagger and Richards, the Stones chief songwriting team, had only began writing together after their manager Andrew Loog Oldham suggested they try.

Calm down Sauron, we're just chatting... I'm not some rabid Beatles maniac...

Jack The Bodiless

10:20 / 19.02.02

Like the Beatles didn't start out to play rock n' roll, and were dirty and leather-wearing, before changing their image and musical style to get more popular nad make money/get chicks. Sheesh.

10:22 / 19.02.02

Shit, I think Flyboy's right. This thread threatens to tear the board apart...

10:24 / 19.02.02

quote:Originally posted by BizCo:

Calm down Sauron, we're just chatting... I'm not some rabid Beatles maniac...

Am calm, am calm ...

10:25 / 19.02.02

actually i'm going through a bit of a beatles obsessive phase, having hated them all my life. it's the wierder stuff i like, though, still can't abide the head-nodding teenybop songs.

10:28 / 19.02.02

OK,I concede. The Stones originally were marketed as being similar to the Beatles, but then found their own way. However, I still prefer the Beatles,just because I feel that culturally they had a bigger impact.
I think Bio may have been right in saying that they're pineapples and grapefruits. Well, not literally. The Beatles were pop. The Stones were Rock n Roll. But they shouldn't be performing anymore...

10:39 / 19.02.02

Nice summary BizCo. Personally I think The Beatles were the most important band of all time, but The Stones are the greatest Rock and Roll band of all time and their music means more to me. I saw them at Wembley a couple of years ago and they still fucking rocked and untill the Strokes and Casablancas stepped up no one had done that Rock and Roll front man thing as well as Mick.

Matthew Fluxington

10:39 / 19.02.02

I've never understood why anyone in their right mind would compare the two for reasons other than that they were commercial rivals in the 60s. Their music is not similar, their aesthetic is completely different, their discography is radically different if just because of the fact that the Beatles wisely quit while they were ahead, and the reanimated corpses of the Stones still are kicking about today.

I think the Stones have done some worthwhile music, but certainly not in the same league as the Beatles. The Rolling Stones are better compared to Led Zepellin, The Doors, or even The Eagles, really...

It is impossible to imagine something like "I Am The Walrus" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" coming from the unimaginative minds of Jagger and Richards... both of which are decent songwriters, but both completely devoid of original thought.

From my point of view, The Beatles did a lot to turn rock and roll into new and different things, and open up the form to new musical ideas, and new ways for the musicians to be something other than bad-boy cliches. The Rolling Stones bad-boy shtick is probably the thing that I hate most about rock music, all of the worst stereotypes and cliches that make people say that bands like Guns N Roses or nowadays, The Strokes are a "REAL" rock band on virtue of them being "badass".

I think that the Beatles proved to everyone that there was a lot more to music and culture than things like this, and opened the doors for a lot of the music that I love today. If the Beatles started today, they would be an indie-rock band. If the Stones did, they would be the fucking Black Crowes, Sheryl Crow, or Counting Crows - you take yr pick.

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Flux = Rad ]

10:43 / 19.02.02

Your point re: like minded comparison is a good one, but please don't everr compare The Stones and The Eagles again, or I'll have to walk accross the pond and commit me some GBH ...

The Natural Way

11:16 / 19.02.02

By "indie band" you mean some kind of *Matadory* type deal, yes? Not the Travis, Coldplay, Oasis variety (who, of course, are about as indie as my left bartark).

Say that you do.

Matthew Fluxington

11:21 / 19.02.02

Yes, of course I meant a Matador/K sorta deal --- Coldplay, Oasis, and Travis are all corporate rock bands - who would ever call a band who records for Sony 'indie'?

The Natural Way

11:23 / 19.02.02

Strangely, many, many people. Indy's just become a byword for dadrock, football chant, stadium bands over here.

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

11:39 / 19.02.02

The Who.

Matthew Fluxington

11:43 / 19.02.02

Your country is weird.

I kinda wish this topic hadn't started - I was hoping that maybe the music forum would drift away from the accepted pop music canon, and start becoming more about turning each other on to different things. Maybe I'm just getting ahead of myself or something - I've just seen so many half-hearted "Beatles Vs. Stones" and things like that in message boards and magazines, I just think it's a bit tired - and also forgetting that those two bands were only a small part of a larger boom in musical creativity in the 60s, that included far more than just white British rock bands.

Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!

11:53 / 19.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Sweet Jane:
The Who.

Damn straight.

11:56 / 19.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Sweet Jane:
The Who.

It's a good call.

Flux, stop moaning and start educating.

12:40 / 19.02.02

You know, I'd give you that the Stones are better than any of Paul's songs. Paul's music was great and beautiful, but it don't speak to me.

John Lennon, however, was god made flesh.

I don't mean that as hyperbole. I belive he was without a doubt an avatar of a higher power sent to advance pop music out of it's uninteresting sentimentality into something artistic and transcendental. No one in the 20th century had anywhere near his incredible ability to hyperevolve an artform.

Listening to virtually any of his post-Rubber Sole Beatles songs takes me to god...

Regrettable Juvenilia

12:43 / 19.02.02

Reason #1 to get irritated with The Beatles: the continued deification of John Lennon. I can't help but think of that scene in Imagine (the documentary, not the simplistic and cliched schmaltzfest of a song), with Lennon himself trying to explain to the starstruck would-be disciple that he's *just some guy*...

[ 19-02-2002: Message edited by: Flyboy ]

12:45 / 19.02.02

...who used to smack his g/f around.

great songwriter, not god, though.

Matthew Fluxington

12:52 / 19.02.02

I don't know - I'll take the deification of Lennon (and to a lesser extent, the other three) over the obnoxious "rock star as dionysian sex god/sexdrugsrockandroll" cliche of Mick N' Keef. At least the myth of John Lennon promotes positive things, even if he wasn't quite the saint folks like to make him out to be.

12:58 / 19.02.02

quote:Originally posted by Sweet Jane:
The Who.

Right on.

13:53 / 19.02.02

Um...

anyone ever heard of an album known as ABBEY FUCKING ROAD!?!??!

OK, ok, so Octopus' Garden isn't the best, but everything else is excellent, and side 2 is damn fucking perfect!

The White Album is incredibly great as well.

You have to give it up to the Beatles for influence.

The Stones were better ROCKERS, yes. But musicianship? Dunno.

Well, back to class for me. Possible real thoughts to be contributed tomorrow.

(apologies for excessive cap use.)

Page: (1)2