Log In
Register
6.45am
4 December 2010
Offline
I absolutely love Charlie for reasons that are unknown to me. I just love his cool demeanor. I don't know how he managed to stay in the Rolling Stones and be sane after all those years. Love him. He's a wonderful drummer.
One of my favorite stories of Charlie is when he punched out Mick when Mick was drunk and being really arrogant with lead singer syndrome.
The following people thank PennyLane for this post:
SgtPeppersBulldog, vonbonteeWell we all shine on like the moon, the stars, and the sun.
9.24am
10 May 2011
Offline PennyLane said:
One of my favorite stories of Charlie is when he punched out Mick when Mick was drunk and being really arrogant with lead singer syndrome.
Is that true???
Now I understand why the Doors were hailed as the ''american'' Rolling Stones… 
*16* Ringo approves
My Music Blog.
One and one don't make two
One and one make one.
2.48pm
19 September 2010
Offline PennyLane said:
mr. Sun king coming together said:
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).
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.
It's a horrible song. The vocals suck, the sitar seems so out of place and the lyrics are insipid.
As if it matters how a man falls down.'
'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.
1.53pm
31 March 2008
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 ****.”
The thing is, that was just something they said to reject The Beatles. Decca signed Brian Poole and the Tremeloes instead, who were auditioning (I think) on the same day, because they were from Essex, which is much nearer to London. The whole “guitar music…” quote is so often cited as a woeful misjudgement but AFAIK it was never Decca's policy.
Can buy me love! Please consider supporting the Beatles Bible on Amazon
Or buy my paperback/ebook! Riding So High – The Beatles and Drugs
Don't miss The Bowie Bible – now live!
10.38pm
4 December 2010
Offline Humour>the truth.
*9*
I told her I didn’t
5.42pm
26 July 2011
Offline Ah yes, the age-old debate.. The Beatles vs the Stones. I suppose I've made my preference known merely by the fact that I capitalize “The” for The Beatles… but to me, it's like comparing Apples to PC's. The Stones are a great riff-driven R&B combo and have some terrific songs, like “Satisfaction”, “Jumpin Jack Flash”, “Paint It Black” and a host of others. But most of their memorable songs involve a very strong hook that plays over and over through most of the song — for example, if you are in a restaurant, as I was recently, where you hear “(This Could Be) The Last Time” on the speakers in the background, you're struck by how many times the main guitar line is played over and over and over… it's a good line, don't get me wrong, but you can OD on the Stones pretty easily — or at least I can. But they still came up with great songs — and Charlie Watts' drumming on “Honky Tonky Women” blows me away every time.
But song for song, there's no comparison with The Beatles, who had something for every mood and every musical taste, it seemed. Yeah, The Beatles knew how to riff too (“Day Tripper ” for example), but there was so much more to their sound. And to be a Stones fan, you have to like the sound of Mick Jagger's voice… with The Beatles, you have three very attractive voices to enjoy — voices that blend extremely well and sound great on their own (and of course Ringo had his own unique sound too).
The Beatles trump everybody, in my opinion, and the way the world still views this band that stopped recording together in August 1969 is a testament to how extraordinary they will always be.
I've got nothing to say, but it's okay..
GOOD MORNING!
GOOD MORNING!!
GOOD MORNING!!!
3.06pm
12 August 2011
Offline Just the other day, I was at Borders, and there was a Beatles biography right next to a Rolling Stones biography. I picked up the Beatles one, and some guy picked up the Stones book and made a disgusted face at me. So I got a Rolling Stones book too and bought both. 
-LOVE is all you need 
5.56am
23 November 2011
Offline Walrus is right. The Beatles were simply much more versatile and had greater depth, wrote marvelous melodies and invented new sounds and even moods. They evolved, improved, and maintained excellence with novelty. They had three excellent song writers and four distinct vocalists. They engage, entertain, and even amuse the audience, combine romanticism with whimsy, crunchy rock-and-roll, child-like imaginings, symphonic flourishes, and world-famous love ballads. And it all is, in the end, very interesting music created and performed by articulate, accomplished, and sincere musicians. They were always surprising.
The Stones snarl at the audience and write the same kind of songs over-and-over again. Although they do it well, they are a one-trick pony. There's nothing funny, clever, or attractive about the Stones. There's nothing romantic or uplifting. None of their melodies stick in my head all day. As musicians they never went anywhere new, showed no great versatility or imagination. There's nothing “interesting” about the Stones music as music. Jagger may be semi-articulate and can certainly be clever, but the band as such is rather dull if not dumb.
Well, that's my opinion.
7.14am
12 January 2009
Offline Ahh, yes. The debate shall rage. However, I maintain that you can like both but can love only one. Then again, there are those that can not stand either. By the way, I gave up reading that book because it was too one sided.
9.56pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Rat Salad said:
None of their [Stones] melodies stick in my head all day.
Now that you mention it, I can never remember a time when I could not get one of their songs out of my head.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
1.15am
23 November 2011
Offline It's the kind of argument we had when we were 16 years old: “Who's the best guitarist? Clapton or Hendrix?” Silly, really. It's more about what mood you're in or what culture you identify with than who is best (a quality never defined). Perhaps education and class, to be honest.
I like the Stones very much. There is no song like “Sympathy for the Devil.” It is unique and without equal. In its wit and structure, it is a rival of any Beatles song. Intelligent, edgy (not a quality of Beatles songs — thus the argument, I think), and dangerous (ditto). Same with “Street Fighting Man” and many others.
I tried to find some reason to define “better band” and offer measurements. I can't, really. I like the Stones when I'm feeling sexy or angry or alienated or powerful. I like the Beatles when I'm sane and ready to listen. It takes some attention to listen to the Beatles, a certain peace of mind, or else they are just fluffy background music. The Stones just hit you raw, and you go with it. I think that's where the difference is if you think about it. It's like listening to rock or classical music to me. One requires attention, the other doesn't.
Given what I just said . . . if you just sort of have the Beatles in the background, you're unlikely to be driven to some emotional pitch as you might when the Stones are on. It's easy for me to hear the Beatles as some kind of “Muzak.” I think it's because they never strike that dark, angry chord inside me as the Stones do. The Stones are one-trick ponies, as I said, but as I said, they're very good at it. No band made me want to pick up a guitar and learn a song as the Stones did. “Midnight Rambler” and whatnot. Simple, adolescent, powerful. 4 chords, I think. Mom, look out!
So was Clapton better than Hendrix? I'd rather listen to Hendrix, but I'd rather Clapton were in my band. Stranded on a desert island, I'd rather have the Beatles music than the Stones.
1.19am
23 November 2011
Offline Zig said:
Rat Salad said:
None of their [Stones] melodies stick in my head all day.
Now that you mention it, I can never remember a time when I could not get one of their songs out of my head.
Like which?
3.40am
23 November 2011
Offline Rat Salad said:
Walrus is right. The Beatles were simply much more versatile and had greater depth, wrote marvelous melodies and invented new sounds and even moods. They evolved, improved, and maintained excellence with novelty. They had three excellent song writers and four distinct vocalists. They engage, entertain, and even amuse the audience, combine romanticism with whimsy, crunchy rock-and-roll, child-like imaginings, symphonic flourishes, and world-famous love ballads. And it all is, in the end, very interesting music created and performed by articulate, accomplished, and sincere musicians. They were always surprising.
The Stones snarl at the audience and write the same kind of songs over-and-over again. Although they do it well, they are a one-trick pony. There's nothing funny, clever, or attractive about the Stones. There's nothing romantic or uplifting. None of their melodies stick in my head all day. As musicians they never went anywhere new, showed no great versatility or imagination. There's nothing “interesting” about the Stones music as music. Jagger may be semi-articulate and can certainly be clever, but the band as such is rather dull if not dumb.
Well, that's my opinion.
Agreed.
8.04am
11 September 2011
Offline I was a huge Stones fan when i was kid. I adored Richards and he was a big influence on my guitar playing. When I started playing in bands as a teenager, people would come up to me after gigs and say “You're like a female Keith Richards!” and I thought it was highest compliment anyone could give me back then.
I don't like them the way I used to–I pretty much refuse to listen to anything after Let It Bleed and of their 60's stuff, about 1/3 of it *at most* has stood the test of time for me. While they were far more of spectacle than the Beatles, from Mick's suggestive stage moves to all the “satanic” nonsense to Altamont to the druggy 70's, they really pale in comparison to the Beatles musically. They tended to settle for being derivative far too often, and despite my youthful admiration for Richards, the dude was quite a lazy guitarist too much of the time. But the one thing that really irks me with the Stones is Mick's lyrics. They usually range from acceptable to gawd awful and can ruin an otherwise decent song.
By comparison, I had to study Beatles song in my music lit for music majors class. They were simply more innovative and pushed themselves more creatively–and they were so consistently. Their influence was far more extensive too.
If I had to sum it up, I'd say: the Stones' music was the product of the 60's, while the Beatles were a major force in defining the 60's through their music. I think it's easy for people to forget what music was like before the Beatles, as their influence is so familiar to us now that we take a lot of it for granted. But they were actually an anomaly–bands just didn't evolve like they did. Rock music wasn't suppose to be enduring like the Beatles were, and rock musicians certainly weren't suppose to transcend the passing popularity of their hit singles. If you were a recording artist back then, you had your thing that you did well and you did it into the ground–maybe get in 3-4 hit singles, if you were lucky–until the next fad and everyone forgot about you. Even Elvis was slave to that paradigm. The Beatles singlehandedly changed that.
I'm not a girl who misses much.
2.42pm
1 December 2009
Offline McLennonSon said:
PennyLane said:
One of my favorite stories of Charlie is when he punched out Mick when Mick was drunk and being really arrogant with lead singer syndrome.
Is that true???
As the story goes, Mick wanted to record something or rehearse something, and needed Charlie, he asked somebody “Where's my drummer?” Word got back to Charlie and he took offense, showed up and punched out Mick, saying “I'm not 'your drummer' – you're my singer!”
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
3.09pm
1 December 2009
Offline Rat Salad said:
The Stones snarl at the audience and write the same kind of songs over-and-over again. Although they do it well, they are a one-trick pony. There’s nothing funny, clever, or attractive about the Stones. There’s nothing romantic or uplifting. None of their melodies stick in my head all day. As musicians they never went anywhere new, showed no great versatility or imagination. There’s nothing “interesting” about the Stones music as music. Jagger may be semi-articulate and can certainly be clever, but the band as such is rather dull if not dumb.
Well, that’s my opinion.
You should listen to the Stones' 1966-68 output in full and revise that opinion. There's a lot more beauty and imagination and humour than you may expect.
GEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
3.37pm
10 August 2011
Offline
The Beatles were clearly the greater band for all the reasons listed above. It was clear in the 60's and it's clear today.
But when it comes to deciding what the SECOND greatest band/musical act of all time is/was, the Stones are solid contenders.
They had a remarkable number of great songs. The Beatles tacitly acknowledged this in informally alternating their single releases with the Stones so as not to go head to head with them (or maybe it was the Stones who decided to release their songs in between Beatle releases…)
And they could be innovative: to get that “Midnight Rambler” lick down, you have to open tune in G and capo up to the 4th fret.
For “Honky Tonk Women” you have to open tune in yet another key (E I think).
[PS Keith Richards wasn't lazy – he was just constantly strung out on drugs!]
"Into the Sky with Diamonds" (the Beatles and the Race to the Moon – a history)
8.37pm
24 October 2011
Offline 
Comparing the Beatles to the Rolling Stones is comparing Apples to Oranges. The Stones themselves gave the Beatles higher scores for songwriting and vocals. The Rolling Stones were/ are a more rougher dance to the music Rock n Roll band with a lead singer who knows how to really perform live on stage which is the only facet the Beatles had lacked.
The following people thank beatle ed for this post:
vonbontee"All You Need is LOVE"
11.12pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline I saw the Stones live years ago and was bored for large parts of it, especially Keith's long boring solo. As for folks wanting to see them live as long as they can play they will keep on going, even if they are 105. It gets boring after a while all this Keith v Mick crap as well.
The problem i have with the stones is that for the last 30 years they have been making the same stuff repeatedly, very little 'new' in that it all sounds the damn same. If they had just stopped then they might have been remembered far more highly.
Plus i keep thinking what a great band and then remember that i hate Satisfaction and no thanks to Guitar Hero never want to hear Paint It Black again.
They seemed to be a step behind the beatles anyway and that that stuff about the stones being rougher was garbage, the only difference was Brian managed to keep it from being printed. Generally thru 'exclusive' interviews.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
6.09am
23 November 2011
Offline Last video I saw, it was a huge (expensive and showy) Vegas act: huge stage, huge production, choreography, gigantic blow-up dolls, and other greatly silly things. This is not The World’s Greatest Rock Band, not in my world. It’s just another circus. Someone else is playing “blues” and “soul,” but not the Stones.
2 Guest(s)