Log In
Register
7.20am
12 January 2009
Offline
I'm reading a book debating this topic. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't a true Beatles fan but I do have an appreciation for the Stones because of their deep blues based sound. It's an interesting book but so far there seems to be a bit of Beatle bashing by both of the authors. I am probably biased but I don't think that any group came close to beating the Beatles lyrically, sonicly, rhythmically, melodically or creatively. But the Stones came close. 
9.39am
9 June 2011
Offline What's the title of the book? I've seen something like that in the bookstore. People are always, and I mean ALWAYS debating weather the Beatles or the Stones are better. I don't listen to a lot of Stones, but I'm sure they were a great band. And of course the Beatles are better.
What I find funny is how Decca rejected the Beatles and accepted the Stones after that. 
Step on the gas and wipe that tear away.
1.47pm
19 September 2010
Offline 
Here's a review from our own Joe which tells you about the book more. I'm not going to say the Stones were better but really, they were the other 60's band. The fact remains that they were a killer singles band. Let's Spend the Night Together, Get Off My Cloud, Under My Thumb, Satisfaction and many more. (Although Paint It Black pisses me off).
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
2.58pm
4 December 2010
Offline oneafter909 said:
What I find funny is how Decca rejected the Beatles and accepted the Stones after that.
“Guitar music is on the way out… oh ****.”
I told her I didn’t
4.07pm
9 June 2010
Offline
The Walrus said:
oneafter909 said:
What I find funny is how Decca rejected the Beatles and accepted the Stones after that.
“Guitar music is on the way out… oh ****.”
Yeah, I think that that was probably how Decca reacted when they found out how insanely popular/good/etc. the Beatles were. So, they decided to jump on the bandwagon…. 
If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind that is confusing things.
4.51pm
19 September 2010
Offline Something has struck me as odd about these two groups. Were they that different? Let's use 1965. The 3 singles for the Beatles: Ticket To Ride , Help , Day Tripper /We Can Work It Out . Three Stones singles from that year: Satisfaction, Get Off my Cloud and As Tears Go By. Two riff based songs each, and As Tears Go By sounds lots like Yesterday . Really, what's this huge gap?
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
7.53pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Both bands were very popular but did have 2 different sounds. The early song structures may have been similar, but the Stones were more bluesy and the Beatles more (Mersey) beaty. Take I Wanna Be Your Man for example. Same song, almost the same tempo, but very different sounding (in my opinion, anyway).
I never understood the debate about Beatles vs. Stones. Why can't we like them both? They all got along with each other, after all. Hell, George even recommended them to Decca.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
10.22am
9 June 2011
Offline That's very true. Two different bands, different style. Nothing to compare.
My father like the Beatles, but can't care much for the Stones.
Step on the gas and wipe that tear away.
11.09am
10 May 2011
Offline
3.54pm
12 January 2009
Offline McLennonSon said:
That is one good post, man.
Thanks I never really bought into the whole debate because it's like comparing apples to oranges. One thing that has always got my goat tho is when the Beatles are called a pop band. Sure, they released popular music but the fact remains that they ROCK! ie Helter Skelter , Revolution , Come Together , etc, etc, etc… And the fact that they are portrayed as the good boys compared to the Stones bad boy image. Seems to me that they were the first band to say tit over and over, sang about orgasms, used multiple drug references, made scathing political statements…The Stones image, I believe, was more manufactured. Either way, both bands produced timeless music. 
8.30pm
4 December 2010
Offline Both bands benefitted from the rivalry and their manufactured images (The Beatles weren't really goody two shoeses, The Stones weren't really the Sex Pistols fifteen years early). It would have sold records, and created fans, much like Blur/Oasis did in the 90s here.
I told her I didn’t
11.45pm
12 January 2009
Offline Zig said:
Both bands were very popular but did have 2 different sounds. The early song structures may have been similar, but the Stones were more bluesy and the Beatles more (Mersey) beaty. Take I Wanna Be Your Man for example. Same song, almost the same tempo, but very different sounding (in my opinion, anyway).
I never understood the debate about Beatles vs. Stones. Why can't we like them both? They all got along with each other, after all. Hell, George even recommended them to Decca.
I think we can like them both but we can love only one. My reason for loving the Beatles is that every member grew up together. Of course, Ringo came via Rory Storm but he was well known in the area and well respected as a drummer. They all earned their chops in Hamburg and brought the driving, rhythmic beat back home. Furthermore, they were all performers. Name me 5 groups that the drummer could also sing. Yes, Charlie Watts held a magnificent beat but watching him is like watching molasses run down a tree.
1.33am
14 November 2010
Offline Zig said:
Both bands were very popular but did have 2 different sounds. The early song structures may have been similar, but the Stones were more bluesy and the Beatles more (Mersey) beaty. Take I Wanna Be Your Man for example. Same song, almost the same tempo, but very different sounding (in my opinion, anyway).
I never understood the debate about Beatles vs. Stones. Why can't we like them both? They all got along with each other, after all. Hell, George even recommended them to Decca.
Um, Zig, are you a carpenter? Cause you NAILED IT!
toryst said:
I think we can like them both but we can love only one. My reason for loving the Beatles is that every member grew up together. Of course, Ringo came via Rory Storm but he was well known in the area and well respected as a drummer. They all earned their chops in Hamburg and brought the driving, rhythmic beat back home. Furthermore, they were all performers. Name me 5 groups that the drummer could also sing. Yes, Charlie Watts held a magnificent beat but watching him is like watching molasses run down a tree.
The thing about Charlie is: he's a jazzman. Originally, that was the kind of music he loved while Mick, Keef, Brian, and Bill were listening to Chuck Berry and Muddy Waters and such. When Mick, Keith, and Brian would catch him listening to jazz on the sly, they'd make him turn it off and listen to some blues. Keith tells a good story about that in his book.
Anyway, I think jazz drummers are more understated-looking, and controlled. They don't make a spectacle. He doesn't have the Ringo Side-Head-Bob-Thingy that we all love, but Charlie just holds that beat and holds it damn well without looking like he's trying to kill someone. Always has, always will.
I love the Stones almost every bit as much as I love the Beatles. Zig pretty much said it all. They're awesome, talented, and charismatic. Just more blues-based. (also I think they're touring after the new year. 
Crying with delight.
)
The sunshine bores the daylights outta me
1.44am
19 September 2010
Offline JET! said:
I love the Stones almost every bit as much as I love the Beatles. Zig pretty much said it all. They're awesome, talented, and charismatic. Just more blues-based. (also I think they're touring after the new year.
Crying with delight.
Hate to be a kill joy, but I think it may amount to one show for 50 years. Jagger has a super-group going now (lead single out now), but there haver been meetings.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
1.57am
14 November 2010
Offline Aw man Mr. S…. Yeah I just heard the single on the radio not 5 minutes ago and was getting suspicious about that… Come on, Super Heavy. Who do you think you are, going and breaking everyone's hearts?
BUT. Keith also has another Wingless Angels album going, and he still really wants to tour. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Everyone just needs to get along… Maybe I should get a “band therapist” certificate and weasel myself in there.
The sunshine bores the daylights outta me
2.03am
19 September 2010
Offline 
JET! said:
Aw man Mr. S…. Yeah I just heard the single on the radio not 5 minutes ago and was getting suspicious about that… Come on, Super Heavy. Who do you think you are, going and breaking everyone’s hearts?
Don’t shoot me, I’m just the messenger!! Although I found out that Ronnie Wood told THE LONDON STANDARD that he met with Keith Richards this week to talk about the possibility of recreating the band’s 1969 concert in Hyde Park.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
2.10am
14 November 2010
Offline Cool! I would honestly go anywhere to see them again. The first time, on the Bigger Bang Tour, I didn't appreciate it enough. From what Keith says, it seems that everyone in the past has been excited to tour a lot, but Mick is sometimes a problem. But it IS Keith saying that, he and Mick have a love/hate relationship I guess. I just want to see one more tour… unless I got to meet Keith instead. That might do.
The sunshine bores the daylights outta me
5.20am
4 December 2010
Offline mr. Sun king coming together said:
Why does it piss you off? This is the song thanks to Guitar Hero: Legends of Rock that made me a Stones fan. You know George inspired Brian Jones how to play the sitar right? George is obviously the better player, but Brian deserves his props.
I love both bands. Different sounds that please the ears. mind, and soul. The Beatles were a better band, but the Stones knew how to rock. I really hope they tour. After seeing Paul (still in withdrawal), I realized going to a Stones concert would be just as life changing.
Well we all shine on like the moon, the stars, and the sun.
6.31am
12 January 2009
Offline JET! said “but Charlie just holds that beat and holds it damn well without looking like he's trying to kill someone. Always has, always will.” Yes, but can he sing? This is my point.
6.38am
14 November 2010
Offline Oh I was just commenting on this: “Yes, Charlie Watts held a magnificent beat but watching him is like watching molasses run down a tree.”
but yes, I agree. he’s definitely not much to hear.
PennyLane said: I really hope they tour. After seeing Paul (still in withdrawal), I realized going to a Stones concert would be just as life changing.
oh same here. same here.
The sunshine bores the daylights outta me
1 Guest(s)