go!


stones

Stones

.

I got a personal preference for the Stones. I love the blues references they threw into their music in the early days.

.

Kinks

Stones

Not a massive fan of either, but I definitely go with the Rolling Stones. Some very nice songs.

The Beatles are the most overrated band of all time. Not particularly great musicians, none of them had a good singing voice, and on the rare occasion they managed to write a good song, somebody else has covered it and made it sound 1000x better.

''oh, but they created their own style, they have affected music like no other band!''. Yes, for the worse! For years I have seen their legacy in the form of annoying, semi-talented floppy haired boy bands releasing shit tunes for years.

ISF said:

Not a massive fan of either, but I definitely go with the Rolling Stones. Some very nice songs.

The Beatles are the most overrated band of all time. Not particularly great musicians, none of them had a good singing voice, and on the rare occasion they managed to write a good song, somebody else has covered it and made it sound 1000x better.

''oh, but they created their own style, they have affected music like no other band!''. Yes, for the worse! For years I have seen their legacy in the form of annoying, semi-talented floppy haired boy bands releasing shit tunes for years.

1000% agree.

The Beatles are the better recording band; the Stones are the better live band.

...And I personally value recording over live performance from an artistic standpoint.

[Edited 11/7/14 7:32am]

Lammastide said:

The Beatles are the better recording band; the Stones are the better live band.

...And I personally value recording over live performance from an artistic standpoint.

[Edited 11/7/14 7:32am]

Interesting.......I'm the opposite.

OMG

bread or butter?

soap or water?

salt or pepper?

hands or feet?

Cheech or Chong?

I'll take both please...

thank u

Too close to call! I have been on a 60s Stones bender for a while and expect to go on a Beatles one before long.

lastdecember said:

Graycap23 said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

lastdecember said:

The Beatles by far, The Stones have their moments but everything they did after 1984 was awful album wise. The Beatles grew in a shorter period of time and also had much more talented individual members that could stand on their own solo easily. The Beatles were not brilliant musicians which is something they always said, McCartney said we knew enough to play our songs and they blended better. You don't need amazing musicians to make great bands you need great pairings of people.

How can you say that? The Beatles never made it beyond 1970! So that's 14 years of great Rolling music to prove you wrong! Sticky Fingers, Exile, hmmm, okay, I'll admit they went downhill after that, but just like 90s/2000s Prince... Plenty of stuff to enjoy! And if Lennon & Macca blended together, so did Jagger & Richards. And Brian Jones could handle the sitar or the mellotron... The Stones didn't really turn into a guitar band until Brian left (died...) and Mick Taylor came in. They had the gift of letting new members come in and change their sound without losing their identity. Just like Ron Wood later who really is nothing more than a foil for Keith, but it kept them going longer than almost any other band. Even though they are a money making machine now, I'll always love them. Hell, they're the only English band that can play the blues! [Edited 11/7/14 14:30pm] [Edited 11/7/14 14:32pm]

Bands like the Stones however were born out of the Beatles first and foremost. When the Beatles "changed" stopped being the lovable teen band, to me no one has since grown like that, Rubber Soul, Revolver, the White Album, even a shit movie like Magical Mystery Tour produced great creative music, and not to miss Let It Be and Abbey Road. Also their break up was because you had 3 guys that EASILY could stand on their own and quite frankly even Ringo did alright. But Paul and John for the most part (cause Paul had some shit solo stuff in the 80s), I cannot see Keith Richards doing what say John Lennon or Paul Did on a solo stage, his albums are actually good better than Micks pretty awful solo stuff. Thing is with a band its a blend of what they are togehter but also what they are apart. To Me QUEEN is a great all around amazing musicianship and perfect blend of 4 guys but solo, Freddie's albums were awful, Brian's were boring and Rogers probably best of the 3 but were painful too.

As for staying together, its good and bad, to me the Stones have been nothing more than a nostalgia group for almost 30 years now, a touring force of course, but during that time McCartney has clearly regained his footing and solo work now has been pretty stellar, Lennon obvioulsy and Harrison it will always be "what if" they were here, who knows what lennon could have done, would they have regrouped for something like Live Aid etc...

So both are great in their way but honestly I think the Stones stayed too long at the dance.

SuperSoulFighter said:

Graycap23 said:

Interesting.......I'm the opposite.

As much as I love my LP collection, nothing beats a band on stage before an audience.

I find this true from a visceral standpoint. There's definitely a certain spontaneous energy in live performance that's undeniable. I personally am a greater fan, however, of really smart composition, of acoustic alchemy, of measured artistic statements -- and those things are honed over time in a studio setting.

[Edited 11/7/14 16:55pm]

i enjoy some of the beatles stuff... i can definitely intellectually and musically appreciate them... they obviously had a profound influence on popular music... their innovation in the studio was groundbreaking... as a musician, i can appreciate their musicianship too... particularly paul's bass playing... try singing while playing those bass lines ... he's no joke

having said that... they don't really move me

the stones on the other hand... their music is sex... the way keith's often open g tuned guitar weaved in with bill and charlie, creating a groove that is like a template for rock... and mick is the perfect frontman

i'm a huge fan of the mick taylor era stones... what a band that was

it's like a comparison between Stevie Wonder and Prince...

SuperSoulFighter said:

Graycap23 said:

Interesting.......I'm the opposite.

Same here. As much as I love my LP collection, nothing beats a band on stage before an audience.

4 me, if u can't do it live, there is no reason 4 me 2 listen 2 your records.

Graycap23 said:

...........

[Edited 11/8/14 12:17pm]

The Beatles

lastdecember said:

Graycap23 said:

4 me, if u can't do it live, there is no reason 4 me 2 listen 2 your records.

Well there is no telling what the Beatles would have done in proper surroundings, no one could hear them early on and they were always playing live from day one. There was no way develop an act or musicianship with the mania they were in for shows, and let's not forget the roof top gig originally was going to be a venue one off show, they'd could play live and all did after the Beatles on their own and in their bands. Some artists work should not be done live or can't be, they could have tried but seriously doing the music they were doing from 65 on in front of 18 year old screaming girls would have been stupidity. I would also add Queen to this list who were a band hat suffered live, no Freddie was best as a frontman and all were top notch musicians but the music they were producing was not fit for the arenas or to be recreated on stage, Bohemian Rhapsody is a horrible live track when done

Ironic

ISF said:

The Beatles are the most overrated band of all time. Not particularly great musicians, none of them had a good singing voice .

I don't think that Mick Jagger has a good singing voice.He's OK,but not great.