Better music?

Y'all must have at least dug into these guys for a while now and you must ve changed your mind a lot about 'em.

At least for some of us to get your opinions, some orgers never got the chance to discuss the topic.

[Edited 5/4/14 13:05pm]

Beatles. I can dig a Stones greatest hits/anthology but the Beatles are a complete discography band.

The Beatles. Better songwriters, better albums, better musicians, and the most original band

that ever existed.

The Rolling Stones are slaves to their influences and let's be honest: all of their songs sound

the same. They have great tunes, but once you've heard one RS album, you've heard 'em

all.

Yeah the Beatles by far and thats not slighting the stones, but if you take the entire catalog of the Stones the latter stuff since "Undercover the Night" has been been fair to no that good at all. Album wise the in later years they havent had strong full albums and also as solo artists there is no comparison to what they did do as individuals as solo artists. Keith had good solo stuff, Mick was OK but not that great, McCartney mostly sttrong than a run of average albums now to a point where they are very strong, Lennon too had great solo work and Harrison was very underrated, as was Ringo.

Then songwriting i think McCartney is one of the best ever as is Lennon in different ways, though Mcartney gets a wrap for just writing "ballads" nothing can be further from the truth, this is the guy that wrote the song that fucking launched METAL music, "helter skelter".

I'm rolling with The Stones. I only know a few Beatles songs, and most of them were covered by better artists

[Edited 5/4/14 18:10pm]

The Beatles.

I like the Rolling Stones,but I've never really been into their albums.I just like a handful of their singles.

controversy99 said:

Stones for me. I like grooves, emotion, rhythm, and the Stones have a lot more of that the Beatles. The Beatles have some great songs, but much of their stuff is so poppy that it's just not interesting. It's great if you're into that kind of thing. But seriously, half of their output was basically for kids.

I suppose you have a point about the Stones having more "rhythm" than the Beatles. If you

remember the genre of music each band was focused on, you could make that argument. The

Stones focused on genres that were heavily influenced by grooves, like R&B, the blues, etc.

However, the rest of your post is so far-fetched and unfounded and inane. There is plenty of

emotion in the Beatles, but why would a band that has not only two superb songwriters, but three!,

write tunes that lazily rely on the least common denominator (emotions) as opposed to intelligence?

Nevermind being unable to quantify this opinion, saying that the Stones had more emotion than

the Beatles is just....silly.

Half of their output was basically for kids? Last time I looked, kids didn't buy albums - grown ups

do. And grown ups have purchased more records from the Beatles than from any other pop-rock

group in history, including the Rolling Stones. And your argument that because the Stones have

more music, this means they have more music to like, works both ways if you catch my drift.

Get familiar.

duccichucka said:

controversy99 said:

Stones for me. I like grooves, emotion, rhythm, and the Stones have a lot more of that the Beatles. The Beatles have some great songs, but much of their stuff is so poppy that it's just not interesting. It's great if you're into that kind of thing. But seriously, half of their output was basically for kids.

I suppose you have a point about the Stones having more "rhythm" than the Beatles. If you

remember the genre of music each band was focused on, you could make that argument. The

Stones focused on genres that were heavily influenced by grooves, like R&B, the blues, etc.

However, the rest of your post is so far-fetched and unfounded and inane. There is plenty of

emotion in the Beatles, but why would a band that has not only two superb songwriters, but three!,

write tunes that lazily rely on the least common denominator (emotions) as opposed to intelligence?

Nevermind being unable to quantify this opinion, saying that the Stones had more emotion than

the Beatles is just....silly.

Half of their output was basically for kids? Last time I looked, kids didn't buy albums - grown ups

do. And grown ups have purchased more records from the Beatles than from any other pop-rock

group in history, including the Rolling Stones. And your argument that because the Stones have

more music, this means they have more music to like, works both ways if you catch my drift.

Get familiar.

Yeah i gotta agree 100%, it is true when the Beatles came out in 1962 and then in 64 in America, that there were tons of screaming girls. But the stones had the same screaming girls too, and to be honest the Stones did more with those screaming girls (to enhance their bad boy image). Yes they had more rythym i guess that can be true, and yes they had more output obviously, but quantity has not translated to quality for the Stones. Where certain artists have done amazing work later in life, Dylan, McCartney, Elton etc....the Stones have not really had a solid album in 31 years, not that they have too many studio albums since 1983's "Undercover", i believe only 6 in 31 years, from all those releases i cannot fill up one disc with solid material that is even half as good as what they did prior.

Not slighting them, props to their abiltiy to still go on, do amazing tours, but for me they have not been a band with good albums in ages.

60s: Beatles

Beatles solo vs 71-05 Stones: Stones

they are both immensely important though, the Beatles influencing virtually EVERY pop/rock band and the Stones doing the same with any hard-rock/trad-roots band

The bottom line? Mick and Keith had the funk. John and Paul did not. It's really, truly just that simple.

hardwork said:

.

I'll take your "Sympathy For The Devil" and raise you a "The Word".

.

hardwork said:

Mick and Keith had the funk.

So what? Funk is not the only music in the world.

Let's not forget that the Beatles taught the Stones songwriting and gifted them this song:

.

.

I don't think the Beatles thought the Stones did it justice though, because the Beatles then put their own version out and I think when you listen and compare the different versions choruses, it becomes apparent how masterful the Beatles are when it comes to melody and harmony.

.

.

That being said, I love both bands to death!!

MickyDolenz said:

hardwork said:

Mick and Keith had the funk.

So what? Funk is not the only music in the world.

Having the funk is way, way more than just having to do with music.

beatles in my headphones, stones in my pants.

lastdecember said:

The Rolling Stones by a mile, and I don't really care for them.

Long live The Kinks!

can't stand Jaggers so called voice, goddam awful
Keith Richards guitar? Phewwwww

mostly mediocre and sub par songwriting except for a random decent song idea here and there, often badly executed. so what... one nice song amongst 100? big fucking deal.. even a broken clock is right 2 times a day

a career made of bad hijacking of way superior music done as boring spineless polished wannabe-facsimiles.... yawnnnn... seriously folks.... like when I first heard their take on Harlem Shuffle I wanted to smash the radio, pointless crap. It's All Over Now? run for the hills, sadly it's not! at least folks like Bobby Womack and others could make a living from royalities from their rape cover versions for a while.
it is obvious that they like quite a bunch of good music. but sadly they can't do it themselves.
find three songs from this list where the RS version is better than the original. can't? me neither. they don't have funk, they tried to copy it. and failed. so what's the point of having this band of posers around for more than five fucking decades!?


so lemme think..... I vote the Beatles

[Edited 5/7/14 2:51am]

controversy99 said:

lastdecember said:

Yeah i gotta agree 100%, it is true when the Beatles came out in 1962 and then in 64 in America, that there were tons of screaming girls. But the stones had the same screaming girls too, and to be honest the Stones did more with those screaming girls (to enhance their bad boy image). Yes they had more rythym i guess that can be true, and yes they had more output obviously, but quantity has not translated to quality for the Stones. Where certain artists have done amazing work later in life, Dylan, McCartney, Elton etc....the Stones have not really had a solid album in 31 years, not that they have too many studio albums since 1983's "Undercover", i believe only 6 in 31 years, from all those releases i cannot fill up one disc with solid material that is even half as good as what they did prior.

Not slighting them, props to their abiltiy to still go on, do amazing tours, but for me they have not been a band with good albums in ages.

I thought I might ruffle some feathers with that post. Lol. So emotion is a least common denominator in music? I'm pretty sure that's not a universally accepted view. Music is for dance, emotion, intellect, and other purposes. I will give you that I shouldn't have asserted one group had more emotion than the other, but I'll stick by the groove and rhythm statements. And sure the Stones haven't produced much exciting music post-1985, but they had a lot of great tunes in the 1970s. I usually prefer 1970s music over early to mid 1960s, so I'm going to lean toward the stones as a result. Early to mid 1960s British rock/pop tended to be corny. They were a few years behind the Americans until the late 1960s.

Yes. As a songwriter/composer, emotion is the least common denominator during the process.

It takes skill, knowledge, talent, practice, and teaching to write well. Mozart did not compose

music because he was full of emotionality; Monk did not compose music because of the same.

Each composer crafted their music with the aforementioned. Sure, there are moments when

their music is lively, sad, etc. But you ask any well trained jazz/classical composer what role

emotion played in the actual songwriting process and I'm willing to bet it was not primary. The

composers who rely on emotion primarily are third-rate pop songwriting hacks.

If the Beatles were not as eclectic as they were, and focused on the genres of music that the

Stones did, they would've out Rolling Stonesed the Rolling Stones - they were just better

musicians all around.

You're safer just saying: "I like the Rolling Stones more than the Beatles" and leaving it at that!
Don't get me wrong - I like the Stones, a lot. They have had verve and I do not think they were

poseurs like other white English bands were who were in love with Black American art forms.

nd33 said:

hardwork said:

.

I'll take your "Sympathy For The Devil" and raise you a "The Word".

.

But, see, that head-to-head has me giving it to the Stones. They're both great bands, and it's all subjective, of course, but in the spirit of pitting one against the other for shits and giggles, I'd have to say that, for me, although The Word's a cool enough slice of loved-up hippy pop, lyrically it's kind of adolescent, and musically, it's still a bit rudimentary. (Though The Beatles pushed the envelope a lot as studio artists, I just don't think they were ever that great at their instruments.) Sympathy for the Devil's a far more sophisticated piece of work musically and lyrically. Musically, the groove they hold down has more going for it, and the musicianship you can hear in their ability to work off each other and give everything space to 'breathe' is, I think, part of what made them great in their day. And, lyrically, there's a more interesting and challenging concept at the heart of it, taking the devil images from the Blues - which I suppose is about our own dark impulses, etc - and filtering that through Jagger's literary influences and viewing the violent politics of the century through that in a really creative and vivid way. Some absolutely great lines in there - e.g. "I rode a tank, held a general's rank / When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank." For me, The Beatles' Sixties idealism just doesn't cut it, up against that.

I give it to The Stones overall, too, so I'm probably biased.

These days ze Stones.

deebee said:

nd33 said:

.

I'll take your "Sympathy For The Devil" and raise you a "The Word".

.

But, see, that head-to-head has me giving it to the Stones. They're both great bands, and it's all subjective, of course, but in the spirit of pitting one against the other for shits and giggles, I'd have to say that, for me, although The Word's a cool enough slice of loved-up hippy pop, lyrically it's kind of adolescent, and musically, it's still a bit rudimentary. (Though The Beatles pushed the envelope a lot as studio artists, I just don't think they were ever that great at their instruments.) Sympathy for the Devil's a far more sophisticated piece of work musically and lyrically. Musically, the groove they hold down has more going for it, and the musicianship you can hear in their ability to work off each other and give everything space to 'breathe' is, I think, part of what made them great in their day. And, lyrically, there's a more interesting and challenging concept at the heart of it, taking the devil images from the Blues - which I suppose is about our own dark impulses, etc - and filtering that through Jagger's literary influences and viewing the violent politics of the century through that in a really creative and vivid way. Some absolutely great lines in there - e.g. "I rode a tank, held a general's rank / When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank." For me, The Beatles' Sixties idealism just doesn't cut it, up against that.

I give it to The Stones overall, too, so I'm probably biased.

.

"Sympathy" is probably the epitome of the Stones catalogue IMO. "The Word" is probably around the Beatles 60th best song IMO. I just threw on "The Word" to show the Beatles can do some groovy tunes too. First thing to mind!

.

So I agree with you that "Sympathy" has amazing lyrics and a killer groove. The groove is lead by the congas which were not played by one of the Stones, but a man named Rocky Dijon. So you could say that song wouldn't have been the rhythmic carnival it is, if it were only the Stones playing on it.

.

Besides the rhythm/lyrical element (for which "Sympathy" is at genius level) "The Word" is far more rich and sophisticated melodically and harmonically. That would be typical of comparison between Beatles and Stones songs. The Beatles can't be beaten, melodically and harmonically, not by the Stones, and probably not by any pop/rock band ever since. That's why they are the pop song writing kings to this day IMO.

nd33 said:

deebee said:

But, see, that head-to-head has me giving it to the Stones. They're both great bands, and it's all subjective, of course, but in the spirit of pitting one against the other for shits and giggles, I'd have to say that, for me, although The Word's a cool enough slice of loved-up hippy pop, lyrically it's kind of adolescent, and musically, it's still a bit rudimentary. (Though The Beatles pushed the envelope a lot as studio artists, I just don't think they were ever that great at their instruments.) Sympathy for the Devil's a far more sophisticated piece of work musically and lyrically. Musically, the groove they hold down has more going for it, and the musicianship you can hear in their ability to work off each other and give everything space to 'breathe' is, I think, part of what made them great in their day. And, lyrically, there's a more interesting and challenging concept at the heart of it, taking the devil images from the Blues - which I suppose is about our own dark impulses, etc - and filtering that through Jagger's literary influences and viewing the violent politics of the century through that in a really creative and vivid way. Some absolutely great lines in there - e.g. "I rode a tank, held a general's rank / When the blitzkrieg raged and the bodies stank." For me, The Beatles' Sixties idealism just doesn't cut it, up against that.

I give it to The Stones overall, too, so I'm probably biased.

.

"Sympathy" is probably the epitome of the Stones catalogue IMO. "The Word" is probably around the Beatles 60th best song IMO. I just threw on "The Word" to show the Beatles can do some groovy tunes too. First thing to mind!

.

So I agree with you that "Sympathy" has amazing lyrics and a killer groove. The groove is lead by the congas which were not played by one of the Stones, but a man named Rocky Dijon. So you could say that song wouldn't have been the rhythmic carnival it is, if it were only the Stones playing on it.

.

Besides the rhythm/lyrical element (for which "Sympathy" is at genius level) "The Word" is far more rich and sophisticated melodically and harmonically. That would be typical of comparison between Beatles and Stones songs. The Beatles can't be beaten, melodically and harmonically, not by the Stones, and probably not by any pop/rock band ever since. That's why they are the pop song writing kings to this day IMO.

I think there are loads of great songs in The Stones back catalogue (and I do also like The Word, outside of this particular death match! ). But, yeah, it is kind of true that The Beatles probably clinch it on melody and harmony. I give it to The Stones on groove, though - and overall musicianship, I think. They're both interesting on a songwriting level, for me, just in different ways. The Beatles seem to get their due a bit more on that score, though, where it seems The Stones are seen as 'only rock 'n' roll' (which, of course, they did increasingly seem to become). In particular, I always feel like Jagger never gets his full due as a lyricist, but he's penned some belters.

dannyd5050 said:

Beatles. I can dig a Stones greatest hits/anthology but the Beatles are a complete discography band.

This.

I always have said the Beatles were a better band than the Stones.

That being said, my favorite artists are as follows:Prince,Stevie Wonder, and the Rolling Stones.

I prefer uptempo music.

I will also say that the Beatles albums, Stevie's 70's albums, and Prince 80's albums are the most solid albums out there. The stones have hits on their albums, but they have not put out any cohesive albums. Where as their counterparts the Beatles consistently did.