home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Either / or: The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

Vote and debate.

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Either / or: The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

The Rolling Stones
41
35%
The Beatles
77
65%
 
Total votes : 118

Either / or: The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

Postby Sebastian J. on Thu May 17, 2007 4:04 pm

I think needs to be done
User avatar
Sebastian J.
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2860
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 3:59 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina

Postby Brett Eugene Ralph on Thu May 17, 2007 4:30 pm

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:
I have a theory: The Rolling Stones invented "Rock" music. Please bear with me a moment.

Yes, The Beatles attempted to take pop music beyond the three-minute mark, adding orchestras and weird effrects and all kinds of other cool shit. Certainly, a case can be made for The Beatles inventing rock music. But Paul McCartney keeps them firmly planted in the Music Hall (with Ray Davies and the Small Faces), while the Stones were souping up the blues into something monolithic.

The Beatles were cute. They were never dangerous, sleazy, creepy, or scary. C'mon, does anybody really find "Helter Skelter" to be scary? "Yer Blues" and "Dig a Pony" are the only Beatles songs I can think of that match the darkest of the Stones catalogue. The Stones set the template for all big, mean rock bands that would follow, including punk rock--The Dolls, The Pistols, The Heartbreakers, The Patti Smith Group all owe the Stones an obvious debt. Sure, Jerry Lee Lewis is meaner and scarier (so's Skip James)--but he was still playing rock & roll music. As someone already stated, the Stones are a rock & roll band, but songs like "Gimme Shelter," "Sympathy for the Devil," "Sway" (as good as any song Neil Young has done with Crazy Horse), "Monkey Man," even "Under My Thumb" introduced a sense of darkness, of creepiness, of bombast and quasi-messianic pretension (though never as pretentious as The Who) that signaled a new era: Rock music. Without the Stones, no Doors--but also no Stooges. Surely it's clear to everyone that Iggy is simply Mick Jagger as seen through a lens muddied by speedballs and Midwestern idiocy. Am I the only one who sees "Gimme Danger" as an answer song?

Don't get me wrong; I realize Mick Jagger is a loathsome human being and that his stage persona is almost unforgivably absurd. But's he's, at best, the third most important Stone--fourth if it's the Mick Taylor era. And you know what: in a perverse way I admire Mick Jagger because he is utterly shameless, willing to do whatever it takes to sell the song, whether it's singing in falsetto, adopting a cod-country accent, or jumping around like a buffoon in an attempt to embody a human form as exaggerated as the riffs blowing up all around him. And if you don't think he can sing, put on "Moonlight Mile."

For me, The Rolling Stones are behind only The Stooges and The Birthday Party in my rock pantheon. They're ahead of the Velvets, Sabbath, and Neil Young. Even (gasp!) Devo.


I totally admire and enjoy the music of The Beatles, but I vote Stones.
User avatar
Brett Eugene Ralph
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6808
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Western Kentucky

Postby Mark Hansen on Thu May 17, 2007 4:43 pm

I've always liked the Stones more than the Beatles. I think I own maybe 3 Beatles records. I think I own every Stones album up to "Exile on Main St.", and then a few (very few) after that.
"for when you bring two objects of such astounding masses of suck as these two together, they circle each other at incredible velocity until finally merging into an infinitely dense singularity of suck"
User avatar
Mark Hansen
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
Greatest Man Who Ever Lived
 
Posts: 8952
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 9:45 am

Postby kenoki on Thu May 17, 2007 4:53 pm

how can you say the stones are better, in part, because they are scarier than the beatles? how is scarier better? the beatles wrote some great songs, were a collection of mostly singer-songwriters, and hardly ever as sexy as the rolling stones (nor really tried to be); whereas the rolling stones were a true rock and roll band experimenting in a separate audio hemisphere. i don't think you can really compare the two except that they're both from england and popular around the same time. but if i must, i guess i go with the beatles. and the stones.
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby kenoki on Thu May 17, 2007 4:54 pm

... double post
User avatar
kenoki
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4671
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 3:21 pm
Location: florida

Postby Kyle Motor on Thu May 17, 2007 4:55 pm

Could be either one at any given moment. I can't choose, although up until a few years ago, I would've gone Beatles.
That dog won't hunt, monsignor.
zom-zom wrote:Fuck you loser pussies that hate KISS.

Go listen to your beard-nerd aluminum guitar shit. See if I care.
User avatar
Kyle Motor
has seen it all
has seen it all
 
Posts: 1739
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 2:43 pm
Location: Madison WI

Postby El Protoolio on Thu May 17, 2007 5:02 pm

Beatles. Better songs, better perfomers, more creative.
User avatar
El Protoolio
Present-day God
Present-day God
 
Posts: 9197
Joined: Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Your Mom

Postby falsedog on Thu May 17, 2007 5:04 pm

Poll: What year do you think the Beatles vs Stones poll will finally die out? 2008, 2018, 2228....

or What year was it last relevant to conduct this poll? 1967, 1970, 1974...
User avatar
falsedog
kareem abdul jabbar
kareem abdul jabbar
 
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Postby Mr. Graham on Thu May 17, 2007 5:14 pm

I'm not even voting, but I just wanted to note that I like "Some Girls" WAY MORE than much better albums by much better bands. Go figure.


Mr. Graham
Mr. Graham
peavey
peavey
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:10 am
Location: Teh Jigga, MA

Postby Little Atlas Heavyweight on Thu May 17, 2007 5:31 pm

Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:Brett Eugene Ralph wrote:
I have a theory: The Rolling Stones invented "Rock" music. Please bear with me a moment.

Yes, The Beatles attempted to take pop music beyond the three-minute mark, adding orchestras and weird effrects and all kinds of other cool shit. Certainly, a case can be made for The Beatles inventing rock music. But Paul McCartney keeps them firmly planted in the Music Hall (with Ray Davies and the Small Faces), while the Stones were souping up the blues into something monolithic.

The Beatles were cute. They were never dangerous, sleazy, creepy, or scary. C'mon, does anybody really find "Helter Skelter" to be scary? "Yer Blues" and "Dig a Pony" are the only Beatles songs I can think of that match the darkest of the Stones catalogue. The Stones set the template for all big, mean rock bands that would follow, including punk rock--The Dolls, The Pistols, The Heartbreakers, The Patti Smith Group all owe the Stones an obvious debt. Sure, Jerry Lee Lewis is meaner and scarier (so's Skip James)--but he was still playing rock & roll music. As someone already stated, the Stones are a rock & roll band, but songs like "Gimme Shelter," "Sympathy for the Devil," "Sway" (as good as any song Neil Young has done with Crazy Horse), "Monkey Man," even "Under My Thumb" introduced a sense of darkness, of creepiness, of bombast and quasi-messianic pretension (though never as pretentious as The Who) that signaled a new era: Rock music. Without the Stones, no Doors--but also no Stooges. Surely it's clear to everyone that Iggy is simply Mick Jagger as seen through a lens muddied by speedballs and Midwestern idiocy. Am I the only one who sees "Gimme Danger" as an answer song?

Don't get me wrong; I realize Mick Jagger is a loathsome human being and that his stage persona is almost unforgivably absurd. But's he's, at best, the third most important Stone--fourth if it's the Mick Taylor era. And you know what: in a perverse way I admire Mick Jagger because he is utterly shameless, willing to do whatever it takes to sell the song, whether it's singing in falsetto, adopting a cod-country accent, or jumping around like a buffoon in an attempt to embody a human form as exaggerated as the riffs blowing up all around him. And if you don't think he can sing, put on "Moonlight Mile."

For me, The Rolling Stones are behind only The Stooges and The Birthday Party in my rock pantheon. They're ahead of the Velvets, Sabbath, and Neil Young. Even (gasp!) Devo.


...I vote Stones.


agreed.

El Protoolio wrote:Beatles. Better songs, better perfomers, more creative.


songs: maybe, but i don't like as many beatles songs.
performers: you're dead fucking wrong.
creativity: maybe, but i never bothered. paul mccartney ruins everything for me.
somebody help me. i can't help myself.
User avatar
Little Atlas Heavyweight
quetzalcoatl
quetzalcoatl
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:39 am
Location: richmond, va

Postby Brett Eugene Ralph on Thu May 17, 2007 5:53 pm

kenoki wrote:how can you say the stones are better, in part, because they are scarier than the beatles? how is scarier better? the beatles wrote some great songs, were a collection of mostly singer-songwriters, and hardly ever as sexy as the rolling stones (nor really tried to be); whereas the rolling stones were a true rock and roll band experimenting in a separate audio hemisphere. i don't think you can really compare the two except that they're both from england and popular around the same time. but if i must, i guess i go with the beatles. and the stones.


I wrote that on another thread in which I was suggesting that the Stones invented what we call "rock" music. I don't necesarily like the Stones because they're scarier--it's more like I prefer 'em because they were never cute. And they rocked harder and more often. And their music is sexier. And Keith Richards was not a Beatle.
Last edited by Brett Eugene Ralph on Thu May 17, 2007 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Brett Eugene Ralph
Heaven-Sent Hero
Heaven-Sent Hero
 
Posts: 6808
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:04 am
Location: Western Kentucky

Postby Ernest on Thu May 17, 2007 5:55 pm

El Protoolio wrote:Beatles. Better songs, better perfomers, more creative.


Just plain better.
User avatar
Ernest
Master of Cunnilingus
Master of Cunnilingus
 
Posts: 12620
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:18 pm
Location: Past where they paint the houses

Postby JamLifeIntoDeath on Thu May 17, 2007 6:11 pm

I like the Beatles better than I like the Rolling Stones.
User avatar
JamLifeIntoDeath
roy campanella
roy campanella
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:39 pm
Location: in the thick of it

Postby Benny on Thu May 17, 2007 6:24 pm

The Stones.
i don´t know, i´m 23 and i really started to listen to both bands about 2 years ago. yeah, i should be ashamed..
and both bands are really great, but i pick the stones. Why? they sound more 'real' than the beatles. i can empathize more with their music, it sounds in some way, more similar to my life and surroundings.
User avatar
Benny
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2996
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 8:16 pm
Location: Southern Hemisphere

Postby carpe_diaz on Thu May 17, 2007 6:25 pm

I voted Stones, they (thru exile) made music that much more strongly influences the music I make and/or enjoy listening to.

The Beatles, even at their most experimental, were really just a very good singles band. Nothing wrong with that, it just ain't my thing.

Two big waffles (butter, no syrup please);

John Lennon had the most pure rock and roll voice I've heard yet...

and the Hamburg tapes prove that the Beatles were a damn fine bar band, at least in the before time.
User avatar
carpe_diaz
courtesan
courtesan
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 2:04 pm
Location: NKY

Postby trilonaut on Thu May 17, 2007 6:27 pm

the beatles are more original.

early beatles i can still enjoy, early stones just bores me.

the stones ripped off the beatles more than vice versa (satanic majesties request is one big rip, the beatles just ripped the stones on the opening to "everybody's got something to hide except for me and my monkey")

the beatles were huge in combining experimental things with pop music, which while i may not always be sold on how they did it, they really sold a lot of people on that idea, which is an idea i appreciate.

i like the beatles voices much more.

some beatles songs have cool basslines. bill wyman is boring as hell.
trilonaut
the white ho
the white ho
 
Posts: 1654
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 3:51 am

Postby madlee on Thu May 17, 2007 6:30 pm

I don't know how true this is, but to me the most important member of the beatles was yoko ono.

besides the stones' movies are a lot better than the beatles' ones.

perhaps this will work for those of you who can't decide:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9786125846
User avatar
madlee
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4841
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:06 am
Location: Philadelphia

Postby Little Atlas Heavyweight on Thu May 17, 2007 6:40 pm

trilonaut wrote:some beatles songs have cool basslines. bill wyman is boring as hell.


what're you talking about? he had a bean!

i kid. he's alright and he had some cool fuzz tones on the bass.

sir paul? asshat.
somebody help me. i can't help myself.
User avatar
Little Atlas Heavyweight
quetzalcoatl
quetzalcoatl
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 3:39 am
Location: richmond, va

Postby Minotaur029 on Thu May 17, 2007 7:04 pm

Both of these bands were great.

The Beatles however, were more than just a band...they were a cultural phenomenon that had a major effect on the way that people viewed the world in the sixties. Even in their early days (circa first American tour) they were considered to be a little bit dangerous (that hair!). 500 years from now, I strongly believe that motherfuckers will study the Beatles the way we study Shakespeare now. The Rolling Stones will be an important footnote...the Christopher Marlowe to the Beatles' William Shakespeare.

I can't believe how close this poll is so far. The Beatles may not be the hottest shit ever, but they are practically peerless.

It should also be noted that this divisive and cliched debate has been done. to. death.
User avatar
Minotaur029
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: 7777

Postby Minotaur029 on Thu May 17, 2007 7:52 pm

carpe_diaz wrote:I voted Stones, they (thru exile) made music that much more strongly influences the music I make and/or enjoy listening to.

The Beatles, even at their most experimental, were really just a very good singles band. Nothing wrong with that, it just ain't my thing.


This is a ridiculous statement.

Welcome to EA!
User avatar
Minotaur029
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
Power Incarnate with Endless Creativity
 
Posts: 7792
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:20 pm
Location: 7777

Next

Return to Crap / Not Crap

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 19 guests