[QUOTE=jerry_soh_619]sorry bout my long comment had to get most of my ideas in there kinda wish jacran would come at me with some hard facts to prove me wrong tho i doubt he will since im understudying in music and i pretty much know what im talking about im not saying their the best of all time evryone has diffrent tastes but the beatles are the greatest its just that simple people, get away from the whole beatlemania syndrome and actually study their music, look at the big picture, they are the most influential revolutionary rock n roll media of all time![/QUOTE]

You want some hard facts?
1-D, ya that’s right I said it. One sided. So they had their early pop years, but were did they go? Right to psychedelic, while bands like The Who and the Stones went psychedelic for an album or two and then moved on to Blues or Hard Rock while the Beatles found a comfy spot and stayed there, and even then they didn't make the best Pop/Psychedelic album that award goes to the Zombies me thinks. And exactly how many "Midnight Ramblers" do the Beatles have, or how about some "Wild Horses"? Not alot. I'm thinking they have maybe 1-2 songs over 6 mins off the top of my head. Not that length matters at all or anything they just like to stay in the comfort zone and not take risks! (I think thats my mose flamable[?] line right there)
Musically? (Since my argument is more towards the Stones as being the best, I'll use them as examples) The Stones have them beat easily but maybe that’s because they have one more band member. Keith Richards has made some of the catchiest riffs of all time, not saying George or John haven't but I dunno "I Can't Get No" sticks in my head a lot longer then "Something" or "While My Guitar Gently Weeps". And Brian Jones could play any instrument George could play if not more, and then if I want to through in Mick Taylor who is one of the most underrated guitarists of all time or Ron Wood who is a decent guitarist that just blows them out of the water. Mick and Brian are both better then George. Paul and Bill are probably even on the bass since bass in both bands wasn't exactly impressive. While many people think that Charlie is an average drummer he was actually quiet impressive, he played in a jazz band in the 80's that showcased what he could play given the right setting, how good of sounding would Keith Moon have been in the Stones or how about John Bonham? Not very good they didn't need booming drums they just needed someone to keep rhythm and make the song fit together. Ringo? Well hell as John once said "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles." So I think there's no argument there.
The only reason the Stones aren't held as high regard is because of the press in the 60's liked to make them sound like out of control kids who were snobby because they were in a band. The police were always trying to bust Mick and Keith, which gave them a lot of bad press when they did finally find drugs on them. While the press loved to cream all over the Beatles, even when John said they were bigger then Jesus it really wasn't [I]that[/I] big of deal, if the Stones would’ve done it they would've got the boot from the record company or something along those lines.
If Altamont would have happened to the Beatles the press would've shrugged it off as some out of control kid getting in a fight with a Hells Angel but after it happened to the Stones people were immediately boycotting the Stones and protesting saying that they provoked this in some way. Politicians were promising people that the Stones would never play in their city left and right.
Influences? Well okay you got me there, the Beatles are one of the most influential bands of all time but so are the Stones in a more subtle way. But just think of this, would Iggy Pop be the same if there were no Stones? No, do you know why? Moves, Mick had the moves and many front men started after they saw what it could do to a crowd, what it could do to a show. Mick was the first non-black guy to be dancing "black" moves. While "white" bands like the Beatles stood around and sang Mick was on stage strutting his stuff making it more acceptable for the Jim Morrison's and Steven Tyler's to do this in the future. And what would Pete Townshend be without his Windmill? Or should I say Keith's windmill although he wasn't even aware he was doing it, Pete has said many times that once when he saw the Stones in concert and during the warm-ups Keith was waving his arm around. Which gave him the idea for it.
Now CD wise, the Beatles released 10 great albums; [I]Rubber Soul[/I], [I]Sgt. Peppers[/I], [I]Revolver[/I], [I]Let It Be[/I], [I]Abbey Road[/I], [I]The White Album[/I], P[I]lease Please Me[/I], [I]With The Beatles[/I], [I]Help![/I] and [I]A Hard Days Night[/I].
Well the Stones released an equally great 10 albums; [I]Exile On Main Street[/I], [I]Sticky Fingers[/I], [I]Flowers[/I], [I]Some Girls[/I], T[I]he Rolling Stones Now![/I], [I]Out Of Our Heads[/I], [I]Let It Bleed[/I], [I]Aftermath[/I], [I]Beggars Banquet[/I], and [I]Between the Buttons[/I].
But if you take the Stones best album against the Beatles I think that I'd take Exile over and Beatles CD.

So in conclusion, I'm a Stones fan boy and that was a major rant. And I'd love to try to see your point because up till about 2 years ago I thought the Beatles were the greatest.

Sorry guys, I just couldn't help myself! I do love the Beatles don't get me wrong, and I'm sure I'm a lone ranger in this "battle", especially in the Beatles thread.

EDIT: But of course it's mostly all a matter of opinions. Opinions are really quiet annoying.

To me the Stones were just a rock n' roll band. A great rock n' roll band but still just a rock band. The Beatles were more than just a band. They were an idea, a movement, and a symbol. They summed up a generation.

Not only were the Bealtes more influential, revolutionized music, came up with amazing recording ideas (backwards guitar, concept albums, flowing tracks) they were better musically (complex and original melodies/harmonies, intricate bass lines, countless varied styles of music, odd time signatures, many key and tempo changes within songs and guitar virtuosity) and they were better lyricists.... and had four front men(three of which could play every instrument under the sun).

The Stones were known for writing catchy 3-chord hard rock with crude solos and lots of attitude. Don't get me wrong I love the Stones and think they are amazing but I do not think that they really compare.

Jacaran, the Beatles had more trouble with the police than the Stones could even think about. Certain members were banned from the US because of drug raids for Christ sakes. They had legal problems up the wazoo and more family problems than you can think of.

Also, please do not try to compare each member individually against each other, that is just plain stupid.

The Beatles took more risks musically than the Stones have. They experimented in pop, country, rockabilly, folk, R&B, hard rock, metal, psychedelia, blues, rock, soul, and eastern music.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]Jacaran, the Beatles had more trouble with the police than the Stones could even think about. Certain members were banned from the US because of drug raids for Christ sakes. They had legal problems up the wazoo and more family problems than you can think of.

Also, please do not try to compare each member individually against each other, that is just plain stupid.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no... The Stones were banned from Canada, and the US and Europe all in a range of 5 years, Keith Richards couldn't even get into the country for 2 years. Mick and Keith both spent about a week in Jail, Keith could've spent 4-5 years in jail but a blind girl they helped out. The Who had to play a benefit concert for them just so they could bail them out of jail one time. Saying the Beatles had more troubles is just stupid I could continue to give you examples for hours.

Well then in my opinion the members of the Stones > Beatles, happy?

And as for your first post, all opinions.

And what Concept album are you talking about? I know its not Sgt. Peppers because that has to be the weakest form of a concept album ever.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]The Beatles took more risks musically than the Stones have. They experimented in pop, country, rockabilly, folk, R&B, hard rock, metal, psychedelia, blues, rock, soul, and eastern music.[/QUOTE]
All of which the Stones did and for 40 years the Stones have been doing it... but when did the Beatles experiment with Metal? Helter Skelter? Revolution? Uh, no thats called Hard Rock.

[QUOTE=Jacaran]Uh, no... The Stones were banned from Canada, and the US and Europe all in a range of 5 years, Keith Richards couldn't even get into the country for 2 years. Mick and Keith both spent about a week in Jail, Keith could've spent 4-5 years in jail but a blind girl they helped out. The Who had to play a benefit concert for them just so they could bail them out of jail one time. Saying the Beatles had more troubles is just stupid I could continue to give you examples for hours.
[/QUOTE]

Read both the Stones and Beatles biography, like I have, and see how ****ed up the Beatles lives were. You would be shocked.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]All of which the Stones did and for 40 years the Stones have been doing it... but when did the Beatles experiment with Metal? Helter Skelter? Revolution? Uh, no thats called Hard Rock.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Helter Skelter was the first metal song and if you don't believe that it is you have to admit that it was the first blue print for metal.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]Read both the Stones and Beatles biography, like I have, and see how ****ed up the Beatles lives were. You would be shocked.[/QUOTE]
Uh, I have... and I've read biographys on every member of the Beatles minus Ringo and every member of the Stones minus Billy and Charlie. And I really wasn't that shocked.

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]Yes, Helter Skelter was the first metal song and if you don't believe that it is you have to admit that it was the first blue print for metal.[/QUOTE]
First blue print maybe... but at the time the White Album came out the Yardbirds were done and had released many blue prints for heavy metal, the same goes with Cream and Led Zeppelin were in the works of [I]Led Zeppelin[/I] at the time.

I haven't heard much other than Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, Abbey Road, and the White Album. It's good stuff though.

Get Rubber Soul. It's my favorite Beatles album.

Pure bliss.

I don't think it's fair to compare the Beatles and the Stones. I love them both. I love The Beatles a little more, but no one, not even the Beatles was as good as the Stones as making just straight up rock and roll hits. The Beatles had a ton of problems, within the band and without it. The Stones were definitely the more rebellious group, but I think The Beatles had about as much controversy swirling around them.

I also think the Beatles had the edge in creativity. Their Satanic Majesties Request was very psychadelic and experimental, but asides from that the Stones didn't venture far from blues-rock and the occassional country-rock song. The Beatles experimented with many different sounds. Now you could argue that the Stones didn't need to experiment because their blues-rock formula was incredibly successful for them and their wasn't much reason to change it. In fact, when the Stones did start experimenting a little later with disco and reggae is pretty much where they started declining, so it was a good thing they stuck to primarily blues-rock. They had a perfect blueprint for success, and if it ain't broken, don't fix it. The Beatles did experiment, and it seems to me that no matter what type of music they experimented with, it sounded good. So I think the Beatles were more creative and experimental, but The Rolling Stones strategy was working for them and they had no reason to experiment.

It's really impossible to compare the band's individual talents. Drumming wise, Charlie Watts based a lot of his drumming off of Ringo, and Ringo said that Charlie was his favorite drummer ever. So they were both extremely similar and very, very solid drummers even if they didn't play like Keith Moon or Ginger Baker. I think Bill Wymann was a pretty average bassist to be honest. Good, but nothing special. McCartney had a few very memorable basslines and in addition to being an excellent bassist, was a great piano player, singer, and songwriter, and played a bunch of other instruments too.

Guitar is where it gets really difficult. Keith is the greatest riff writer of all-time IMO. Brian Jones was pretty good, but did not play as many instruments as George. And who brought the sitar into rock music? George's sitar work inspired Brian Jones to take it up and come up with the brilliant intro to Paint it Black. Mick Taylor is an amazing blues guitarist and one of my favorite guitarists ever. George is probably one of my 3 favorite guitarists ever (hence the George avatar). Actually, I'm not going to get into guitar anymore because I love all these guys and I don't know how I can argue against any of them.

Songwriting wise, Keith wrote some very memorable guitar riffs. Lyric-wise, I prefer Paul and John's and even George's to Mick. Mick wrote some excellent lyrics but I just love The Beatles songwriting. Having said that, nobody to write rock albums like The Stones (Street Fighting Man, Satisfaction Sympathy for the Devil...

I am a hardcore fanboy of both of these bands and though I slightly prefer The Beatles, The Stones were very, very close to them IMO. You can't discount that these bands were great friends and had a friendly competition going so they influenced each other a lot in their sounds. Wow I've been typing this out for a really long time and I've realized that it pretty much adds absolutely nothing to this thread. Both bands are just incredible and have a lot in common but also have very distinct styles if that makes sense.

np- Jumpin' Jack Flash:cool:

Edit- And yes Rubber Soul really owns. First Beatles album that I bought on my own. Get it!

I know this question has probalby been asked before but i really want to get into Harrison's solo work. Can anyone give me some song and album recommendations?

[QUOTE=TheShaneOMac]I know this question has probalby been asked before but i really want to get into Harrison's solo work. Can anyone give me some song and album recommendations?[/QUOTE]

All Things Must Pass. George Harrison's death anniversary is coming up and I'm doing a write-up on him for it. I'll upload ATMP and send it out to anyone who's interested when I post the write-up. He died on November 29th so I'll post my write-up and send out some of his solo stuff then.

Brainwashed is excellent aswell.

<3 Jeff Lynne for producing his stuff.

All things must pass is, as previosily mentioned, IMO Geroge best solo album. I have always liked Paul's solo work best, and Johns is ok, but George had some decent stuff too. Not Guilty is a good song.

I don't care how much better the Stones were at their instruments or how much catchier their riffs were, YOU CAN'T BEAT STRAIGHT UP BEAUTIFUL SONGWRITTING! Stones were [I]good[/I] musicians but they weren't great. As for songwritting, the Stones made some extremly catchy and simple riffs but can you honestly compare a catchy riff to such songs as "Strawberry Fields" or "Across the Universe" which overpower you with their overwelming beauty? I think not. The Beatles kill them in originality aswell. The Stones never created something that was truely original as for the Beatles, they basically created Psychedelia with [I]Revolver[/I]. The Stones created a new attitude an attitude that would be later hailed as Rock and Roll but after basing themselves around the whole "bad boy" Rock and Roll image for almost their entire career they instantly sold out with [I]Satanic Majesties Request[/I] and after the Psychedelic trend died down (a trend that the Beatles started) they went right back to that bad boy image as if nothing had happened. I like the Stones but you honestly can't compare them to the Beatles and win period.

Beatles > Stones (easily)

And lets not forget that the Stones first #1, I wanna be your Man, was written by The Beatles.

[QUOTE=Schyma]I don't care how much better the Stones were at their instruments or how much catchier their riffs were, YOU CAN'T BEAT STRAIGHT UP BEAUTIFUL SONGWRITTING! Stones were [I]good[/I] musicians but they weren't great. As for songwritting, the Stones made some extremly catchy and simple riffs but can you honestly compare a catchy riff to such songs as "Strawberry Fields" or "Across the Universe" which overpower you with their overwelming beauty? I think not. The Beatles kill them in originality aswell. The Stones never created something that was truely original as for the Beatles, they basically created Psychedelia with [I]Revolver[/I]. The Stones created a new attitude an attitude that would be later hailed as Rock and Roll but after basing themselves around the whole "bad boy" Rock and Roll image for almost their entire career they instantly sold out with [I]Satanic Majesties Request[/I] and after the Psychedelic trend died down (a trend that the Beatles started) they went right back to that bad boy image as if nothing had happened. I like the Stones but you honestly can't compare them to the Beatles and win period.

Beatles > Stones (easily)[/QUOTE]
Shoo, go back to the Pink Floyd thread you!

The Stones wrote beautiful songs, Wild Horses? Paint It Black? Angie? Under My Thumb?
Arg! /runs back to Rolling Stone thread.... oh shi nm...

:lol:

I'd give you rep for making such a risky argument in the Beatles thread but it says I have to spread first. Sorry....:p

Robo gets rep though.

Paul McCartney in 4 hours. :D

[QUOTE=Schyma]

Robo gets rep though.

Paul McCartney in 4 hours. :D[/QUOTE]

:cool:

Have fun at McCartney, it should be awesome.

Does anyone have any Ringo solo albums? I've always been a little curious about his solo career. I know John, George, and Paul all played on his solo albums but don't really know anything else about his solo career. It Don't Come Easy is an awesome song though.

[QUOTE]<3 Jeff Lynne for producing his stuff.[/QUOTE]

<3 Jeff Lynne for being one of the raddest musicians in existence, period.

I can't hear you! :(
The second I saw you posted in here I knew what'd you say. Your so predictable Med. :P

Whoa, Paul in 4 hours I totally missed the details, how close are you? I take it its in Houston? Who's opening?

Lets see, I have one Ringo album it was pretty boring lemme see if I can find it then I'll get the name up. And I never knew George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with him, I always figured it was John.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]And I never knew George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with him, I always figured it was John.[/QUOTE]

I think Ringo sung it on the Concert for George. I could be wrong, though.

Ya he did, I've seen it on the commercials I think he looks really funny in it singing behind his drum set, it made me laugh actually. I'm not even sure why.

Yes, it's in Houston, I'm about 10 miles away and I have no clue whose opening. Who usualy opens for him?

McCartney was great....

and man the four year anniversary is coming. I can't believe its been that long ago, I was a freshman in high school when one of the Gods fell to the earth and perished.

[B]No one can say The Stones are more rock and roll[/B]

Let me tell you a story of the beatles early days...when they played in the cavern. They played for many many hours straight each day (over 5). Covering Rock and Roll classics such as Chuck Berry songs, and Little Richard songs.

They all slept in the same room which was very tight for the four of them, (two bunkbeds), and George lost his virginity while all the other beatles were in the room. They clapped...

And on stage they had to eat, and sometimes fall asleep behind the piano while playing because they played so long. And they had to deal with drunken bums who climbed up on stage...once John who was eating on stage threw a knife to scare the guy, before kicking him in the head and off the stage.

And there were plenty of other beatings given and recieved back in those days, especially for there early bass players, who were to slow to get away from the "teddy boys."

And when it comes to Rock N' Roll voices, John's voice when he was singing a rock n' roll song could sound more rock than Jaggers (example: Yer Blues), and McCartney when he wanted too could belt out a great rock song (example: Long Tall Sally (cover of Little Richard), and Helter Skelter).

But all you need to do is read up on the Beatles days in the Cavern to find out who paid there dues, and who was more "rock n' roll"

Um, just to point out, that is just the same as what happened to the Stones, but there were riots also every night.
/shrugs.

I'm pretty sure that the scene was similar for other bands in that area and time period.

I don't even know how The Rolling Stones can be compared to The Beatles.
I'm still trying to find what was so good about the Stones and i still haven't found it.

I listened to one of the Stones LP's again recently, i actually got bored.

The Beatles are actually far more rebellious than the stones, i mean, Lennon himself created so much controversy and pulled so much cheek. Also in the Philipines when there was immense chaos, the beatles were hiding with their luggage because they all had their personal weed stashes in their bags.

The stones are still touring and have accomplished far less in 40 years than the beatles did in 8... sad.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]

Lets see, I have one Ringo album it was pretty boring lemme see if I can find it then I'll get the name up. And I never knew George Harrison co-wrote "It Don't Come Easy" with him, I always figured it was John.[/QUOTE]

I always thought is was John too. The version of It Don't Come Easy on my computer says it's performed with John.

He performed it at the Concert for Bangladash too.

Just because the Beatles had a lot of controversy doesn't make them more rebellious. I think The Stones actually had the more rebellious attitude but they kind of stole it from The Beatles. The Beatles rebellious nature inspired bands like the Stones to act rebellious and I think the Stones took that "bad boy" image further. I still prefer the Beatles, but I think the Stones had more of the "bad boy" image.

EDIT: No comment on el idiota Blackbird.


I was reading George Harrisons credits for albums, boy did that guy produce albums like crazy. He did like 5 Ravi albums, I dont' have any of the ones he played on/produced. I might have to pick one up now.

the stones are not greater than the beatles, before there was stones there was beatles, simple as that! the beatles opened up the door for the british sound wich is basically creative bass lines around guitar verses and yes the stones rode the beatle coatail to fame and style, the beatles even supplyed them with their first hit!the stones werent even that good techinically they were loud and maybe thats why they got away with it using lots of distortion and pedal effects/delays its easy to be loud and its hard to be just right and good thats the main diffrence between the stones/zeppelin and the beatles, first of all i doubt youve listened to the early beatle tapes? pete best was a horrible drumber and yes john lennon did say that in defense of his freind (pete best) its no secret they grew up together along with stuart sutcliffe, so was john right about ringo? heck noooo, did ringo starr invent the rim shoot who knows but it was certainly more noticeable after ringo, i never heard a diffrent snair sound before the beatles it was all the same, and about the bass dude i can teach my little son the bassline to get off my cloud! no one will ever be better, more influential, than sir paul mccartney on the bass the beatle records are blueprints of how the bass is played today! and as far as singing goes jagger was great at just being loud and lyrically not very good, no way in hell are the stones better than the beatles nevermind greater, the beatles were far too advanced for the stones,defentaly more influential, and if jagger made it easy for singers to dance and jump around and shake their booty, i wonder what elvis might say to that!? the beatles were not good but great in every style they touched brit-pop,phsyco,blues-folk, the stones if anything stayed in their rock blues comfort zone, so what does that mean? not the same vision-creation and ideas than the beatles

Periods are your friend.

On the rebellion issue, if I was rioting I would rather blast Street Fighting Man or Jumpin' Jack Flash. If I were protesting peacefully, I would play Let It Be or Come Together.

If I were protesting, I'd use Gimme Some Truth.....

that song>all other protest songs

The Beatles and The Stones were both terriffic bands with great songs and fantastic carreers, but the stage persona of the Beatles and Stones did little to reflect the reality of their lives. The Stones came from rich families and were considered college bound. The Beatles grew up poor; John was a member of a gang and Paul almost quit the band just to make some spare change. If you want real rebels, you need look no farther than the Beatles.

@ jerry_soh_619 it seems you’re the one who hasn't heard early Stones, distortion? Pedal effects? Easy to be loud, oh ya please. The Stones were already formed when the Beatles were making an impact on America so that doesn't even matter, the Beatles just happened to be lucky, they were nothing special in the beginning just another band from the UK who got lucky, right place right time. If the Beatles would've not came over a different band would've. Paul McCartney? Most influential bass player? Er, no. I play bass and as much as I like the Beatles he isn't even in my top 25 of bass players, I don't know of anyone (Famous and friend) who says they started playing because of him. He made simple bass lines any one could make. Nothing special at all.
Lyrically the Stones are bad? Er, again no. Ever heard of a song called "Gimme Shelter"? "Paint It Black"? Please saying the Stones lyrics are bad is like saying the Beatles had bad lyrics, it’s just ridiculous. No argument here about Lennon/McCartney being the greatest writing duo of all time, though. And Jagger just being loud? I'd like to see someone else sing "Ruby Tuesday" or "Under My Thumb" or "Lady Jane" as well as he did. Your argument is so ignorant it’s not funny, your making it sound like the Stones were some trashy bar band that never grew out of being a bar band.
Stones stayed in their blues-rock? Hm, I know [I]Flowers[/I] isn't blues-rock, [I]Their Satanic Majesties Request[/I] isn't blues-rock and I'm not going to use post-72 albums as examples just because everyone hates them (For the most part). Just like the Beatles were best at pop songs the Stones were best at blues, so of course they are going to stay in that area for a majority of their albums, while the Beatles really after [I]Rubber Soul[/I] didn't experiment or change their sound from album to album. There really isn't a big difference between [I]Rubber Soul[/I] to [I]Revolver[/I] to [I]Sgt. Peppers[/I] to [I]White Album[/I].

This thread for the past day or so turned into a Beatles Vs. Stones thread. :P

The Stones were middle class for the most part, Brian Jones was the most wealthy one, I believe. They only let Billy Wymann in because he had a nice amp, because they couldn't afford to buy one. None of them came from rich homes, middle class just like the Beatles.

[QUOTE=Jacaranda]. There really isn't a big difference between [I]Rubber Soul[/I] to [I]Revolver[/I] to [I]Sgt. Peppers[/I] to [I]White Album[/I].[/QUOTE]

:amaze:

[QUOTE=Violent_Bill]:amaze:[/QUOTE]
Uh huh, I went there.