The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones | Page 4 | Yesterday... and today | Fab forum

Please consider registering
Guest

Log In Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

  
 

— Match —

   

— Forum Options —

   

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
21 September 2012
1.26pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
61

One man's truth is another man's lie. We both disagree, but you shouldn't be rude.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
21 September 2012
1.40pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10402
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
62

George released one of the best solo beatles albums ever with Cloud 9 in 1987. A very well produced and well rounded album with some incredible songs from an artists who quickly got fed up with the music business and all its executives in the 70's and stopped in '82. It was also nigh-on impossible for him to ever match the quality and success of ATMP from the off.  

I agree about Double Fantasy not being Johns best release but i personally think his music would have improved if he had been lived. For me DF was a "hello, im John, im still alive and kicking and have made a new album, how you all doing?". Of course there is no way we can possibly know what would have happened if John hadnt of been killed but its what i think. He was in a far happier place when he returned having come to peace with his past and himself (thats one of the reasons why i find it incredibly difficult to read the events of September 1980 to January 1981).

I hated Driving Rain and Memory Almost Full, still absolutely detest them, but many folks praise Pauls Chaos and Creation and rank it up with his very best work (i havent heard it because im not paying £7-8 after the previous two, i'll wait till i find it for £3 second hand).

 

As for the Stones i wrote previously that whilst i like their 60's output after that they just repeated the same thing over and over ad nauseum. Saw them in Glasgow about 10/15 years ago and found their concert to be largely dull with songs i did not like at all.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
21 September 2012
3.45pm
GeorgeTSimpson
Vienna, Austria
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 345
Member Since:
12 April 2012
Offline
63

For me comparing the beatles and the stones is like comparing paul's solo carrer and john's solo carreer. I would call the stones more rock and the beatles more pop. Same goes for lennon and mccartney: lennon mor rock, paul mor pop. The stones are on of my favourite bands and john is one of m favourite musicians. But I absolout,ey 100 percentl prefer the beatles and paul. The beatles and paul's solo carrer is much more easy-listening than the stones and john's solo stuff. I can absoloutley see why some people prefer the stones over the beatles and why some people prefer john over paul. I just don't do it

Once there was a way to get back homewards. Once there was a way to get back home; sleep pretty darling do not cry. And I will sing a lullaby
21 September 2012
4.13pm
The Walrus
Working for the national health
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1010
Member Since:
4 December 2010
Offline
64

I see what you are saying, George, but I feel that is a very simplistic way of looking at things. Most of the Stones' best stuff is accessible pop music, and the Beatles moved towards rock (or at least, successfully moved towards rock) much earlier. The Rolling Stones' first attempt at a "proper" rock album came out about the same time as Magical Mystery Tour, by which time The Beatles had already defined the genre with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's.

And I neeeeeeeeed her all the time
21 September 2012
4.38pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

MKR, my only real issue with "Country Honk" is that "Honky Tonk Women" is so much better. Really, Let It Bleed is pretty great, it's just a couple of minor details that irritate me (children's choir, "Midnight Rambler"'s silly spoken-word bits in particular.)

And yeah, I definitely agree about the diminishing Stones-and-solo-Beatle returns throughout the '70s.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
21 September 2012
4.48pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
66

The Rolling Stones' first attempt at a "proper" rock album came out about the same time as Magical Mystery Tour, by which time The Beatles had already defined the genre with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's.

Don't really understand this, Walrus...why aren't the Stones' first 4-5 albums "proper" rock albums? Or the Beatles' pre-Revolver albums, for that matter? Are you drawing a line between "rock" and "pop" or "rock 'n roll" or whatever?

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
22 September 2012
1.15am
tkj
The Cavern Club
Forum Posts: 82
Member Since:
8 August 2012
Offline

MKR said

tkj said
Okay, I hate The Stones but Im not going to write a whole paragraph why. But this is what I think: The Beatles is one gazillion trillion billion zillion times better than them. The Beatles is the best band ever walked the earth, The Stones arent even a good band. 

This is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever read on the subject of popular music and makes me question your level of maturity in addition to your level of taste. 

 

Obviously these things are matters of opinion, but how can anyone not respect the output of the stones in the 60s and early 70s?  Especially beatles fans who obviously can appreciate good musicianship and good songs.  Look the Beatles are my favorite band.  I can't ever see a band have the impact they did or be as good as they were ever again, but shit man the Stones were pretty DAMN good and like i said Let it bleed is as good as any Beatles album.  sorry to burst your bubbles but it's simply true.  You know it's funny to even get on a song like country honk (which i actually think is a great playful track), when you need look no further than something like Rocky Raccoon.

 

Like i said in an earlier post:  this is a stupid debate.

Well, at least I like the intro of 'Gimme Shelter'. 

And btw, maybe I would've liked The Stones if they had a vocalist who could sing.

22 September 2012
1.20am
MKR
The Indra
Forum Posts: 42
Member Since:
29 August 2012
Offline
68

ya i don't really get the 1967 first rock album comment regarding the stones.   What would you call Out of their heads?  Aftermath?  December's children? 

 

And i have another parallel to draw for you von bontee.  Revolution is much better than revolution1.  just sayin!a-hard-days-night-john-1

22 September 2012
6.45pm
The Walrus
Working for the national health
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1010
Member Since:
4 December 2010
Offline
69

Von Bontee said
The Rolling Stones' first attempt at a "proper" rock album came out about the same time as Magical Mystery Tour, by which time The Beatles had already defined the genre with Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's.

Don't really understand this, Walrus...why aren't the Stones' first 4-5 albums "proper" rock albums? Or the Beatles' pre-Revolver albums, for that matter? Are you drawing a line between "rock" and "pop" or "rock 'n roll" or whatever?

I am kinda drawing a line between "rock" and "pop", and I don't mean that in a snobby, derogatory way like people often do when they talk about rock. For example, I would probably call Rubber Soul pop, but it is in my five favourite albums. There is also a line between the Sam Cooke/Chuck Berry rock 'n' roll and the rock of the Beatles etc. that I suppose comes into play.

I'm talking partly about sound, and partly about being album orientated. Satantic Majesty was the Rolling Stones' first attempt to make an album, rather than record enough songs for an album, as far as I am aware. Before that, I find most of their stuff to be easily accessible, commercial, basically Jagger and Richards' take on A Hard Day's Night or an inspiration for Blur's Parklife. MKR mentions Aftermath- in my eyes closer to pop than rock, though really somewhere in between- and Out Of Their Heads- two of the first great rock songs on here, but zero cohesion as an album, very accessible, not nearly pretentious enough, basically the height of "rock and roll". I've not listened to December's Children, in fact I hadn't heard of it until MKR mentioned it, but a quick glance at Wikipedia makes it out to be the Rolling Stones' equivalent of the Hey Jude LP.

I'd like to reiterate that I don't think being accessible, commercial, radio friendly, or anything like that is a bad thing. In fact I think those are positive qualities for music.

Von Bontee said
MKR, my only real issue with "Country Honk" is that "Honky Tonk Women" is so much better.

I am much the same. Whenever I listen to it, I think "I could be listening to that riff and those sexy vocals". I also don't think it has any particular redeeming features, whereas there are the backing vocals on Revolution #1, and the opening guitar work, and the false start, and the way John sing/sneers those opening lines. Also, I don't like "Honky Tonk Women" for the lyrics, I like it for the general sound, whereas Revolution has great lyrics to go with the sound.

And I neeeeeeeeed her all the time
24 September 2012
6.36pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

Hmm...OK, except I really question the notion that two of the first great rock songs are on "Aftermath" - two of the first 3000 great ones, maybe! Plus, I'd say that that album is as much blues and folk-rock as rock and pop. And I don't understand the allusion to "Park Life", but I know next to nothing about Blur aside from the coupla tracks I've heard.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
25 September 2012
4.25pm
The Walrus
Working for the national health
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1010
Member Since:
4 December 2010
Offline
71

Von Bontee said
Hmm...OK, except I really question the notion that two of the first great rock songs are on "Aftermath" - two of the first 3000 great ones, maybe! Plus, I'd say that that album is as much blues and folk-rock as rock and pop. And I don't understand the allusion to "Park Life", but I know next to nothing about Blur aside from the coupla tracks I've heard.

I was talking about Out Of Our Heads when I said "two of the greatest rock songs"- The Last Time and Satisfaction.

I hate amalgamating genres, but I would agree with you about Aftermath being very blues-y. Blues-pop? Compare it with Disreali Gears, for example, which mostly straddles blues and rock, though as always other genres mingle in.

When I mention Parklife (and AHDN) I simply mean that they are also quite "pop" albums with a little bit of "rock" coming through, made by "rock" bands, though Parklife does have some very experimental tracks. The three albums don't really sound very alike.

And I neeeeeeeeed her all the time
25 September 2012
6.12pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
72

OK, all is clear now! You originally said "two of the first great..." rather than "two of the greatest" but I agree that those are two of the first great Stones originals.

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
26 September 2012
7.56am
linkjws
The Star-Club
Forum Posts: 68
Member Since:
25 September 2012
Offline
73

Ok so I guess here is my two cents on the topic...

I have never been able to get into the stones.  I don't really know why, they are an exciting bluesy rock band from the same time as The Beatles, but they just have never appealed to me.  So whenever this conversation comes up (and it does a bit), I kind of just say I am not in to the stones and thats end it.  I usually say The Beatles were the trail blazers, and the Stones were the gold rushers.  Which leaves some people confused, offended, or both.

That said, I don't think "apples to oranges" describes accurately enough some of the differences and similarities between the two bands.  A lasting impression I had for a while was made by John in his 1970 interview with Rolling Stone Magazine in which he basically said the Stones ripped off The Beatles every album.  I then looked up the recording and release dates of a lot of the works mentioned and a few others, and I laughed a bit.  It does seem like a blatant rip-off in my opinion regarding some material, and certainly album covers and titles.  I was not alive at the time though, but I know stylistically a lot of bands were going through these changes, so I assume that's what the times were like then maybe...?  But John does seem to raise a few good points, and a few points of praise between the bits of bashing.  However John was pretty bitter and spiteful of just about every aspect of his life that wasn't John & Yoko at the time.  

The excerpt is here: 

26 September 2012
5.34pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline
74

What did John think was ripped off? The only things I can think of are "As Tears Go By"/"Yesterday" (ballad w/strings) and "Paint It Black"/"Norwegian Wood" (sitar).

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
26 September 2012
6.04pm
MKR
The Indra
Forum Posts: 42
Member Since:
29 August 2012
Offline
75

John was totally bitter and was very competitive.  I remember reading about how he always felt inferior to artists with better sales than him and it would really piss him off namely Paul.  He used to run his mouth a lot.  I've heard that clip i few times and quite frankly it looks a bit worse on John than anything.  Not that it takes away my admiration and opion of Lennon. He was a genius, but he could also be a prick.  I don't really agree that much with what he was saying there.  The beatles were geniuses yes. they pioneered a lot of concepts and approaches in the mid 60s, but to outright accuse the stones of ripping them off is weak sauce.  We love you was written for their fans in light of their drug bust - not really trying to be All You Need Is Love.  I mean where does it stop?  was everyone singing about love ripping off All You Need Is Love?  Sometimes he was 'just a jealous guy.'a-hard-days-night-john-7

26 September 2012
6.14pm
meanmistermustard
Moderator



Forum Posts: 10402
Member Since:
1 May 2011
Offline
76

He thought that We Love You was a rip off of All You Need Is Love tho i believe the basic tracks of We Love You were recorded first and that Their Satanic Majesties Request was a complete rip off of Pepper. Those are the two that come to mind at the moment, there will be others.

Don’t make your love suffer insecurities, trade the baggage of self to set another one free. ('Paper Skin' - Kendall Payne)
26 September 2012
6.59pm
MKR
The Indra
Forum Posts: 42
Member Since:
29 August 2012
Offline

meanmistermustard said
Their Satanic Majesties Request was a complete rip off of Pepper.

 

How so?

26 September 2012
7.24pm
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6916
Member Since:
19 September 2010
Offline
78

Have you seen the cover? Or looked at the title? Or the story behind the album? Or the story behind the name of the album?

Also, everything Lennon says was true. Throwing around terms like prick (which he was at times, no doubt) because you can't prove him wrong is weak. I watched that clip this morning - there is nothing he said that is wrong.

I tried to think of something powerful and moving… and failed.  "You were given a choice between war and dishonor - you chose dishonor, and you shall have war" - Winston Churchill
26 September 2012
7.55pm
Von Bontee
A Hole In The Road
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 2205
Member Since:
14 December 2009
Offline

"Satanic Majesties" was certainly Pepper-inspired, but there was a lot of that about at that time.

"We Love You" had nothing to do with "All You Need Is Love".

I think John was a bit paranoid. What else did he mention specifically? (I can't view that clip.)

One day, a tape-op got a tape on backwards, he went to play it, and it was all "Neeeradno-undowarrroom" and it was "Wow! Sounds Indian!" -- Paul McCartney
26 September 2012
11.47pm
Long John Silver
Hollywood Bowl
Forum Posts: 366
Member Since:
9 May 2012
Offline
80

Let it Bleed...

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
Forum Timezone: Europe/London

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Mr Bellamy, Ahhh Girl, Bulldog, Sugarplum fairy
76 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 10402

mr. Sun king coming together: 6916

Ahhh Girl: 5533

parlance: 5501

Annadog40: 4749

mithveaen: 4651

Zig: 4549

Mr. Kite: 4305

Ron Nasty: 3218

fabfouremily: 2947

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 88

Members: 2685

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 34

Topics: 3146

Posts: 140538

Newest Members: phile24, ZoeLouk, arsentev78, Rocky You're a Blackbird, Johnlovedcats

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 5533, meanmistermustard: 10402, Zig: 4549, Joe: 3497

Administrators: Joe: 3497, Ellie: 1

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: None