- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Beatles or Stones?
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:59 am to SaintlyTiger88
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:59 am to SaintlyTiger88
The divide between the two was mostly artificial.
0
Posted on 5/10/24 at 12:25 pm to SaintlyTiger88
I’d rather go see the stones live but would rather listen to the beatles at home if that makes sense
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:30 pm to SaintlyTiger88
I've listened to both for my entire life. The Beatles had unmatched creativity. Paul's melodies are tremendous. George was an immensely talented (and underrated) musician who did whatever the song required. John was a legend.
That said, 60 years of rock is more impressive, IMO. The Beatles couldn't make it 10 years.
Mick is the best front man of all time. Keith has magic in his 5 strings. The band is the tightest you'll ever hear. They've made huge hits in multiple genres. They've performed with everyone from Muddy Waters to Lady Gaga. They have dozens of anthems.
For me, the choice is easy.
That said, 60 years of rock is more impressive, IMO. The Beatles couldn't make it 10 years.
Mick is the best front man of all time. Keith has magic in his 5 strings. The band is the tightest you'll ever hear. They've made huge hits in multiple genres. They've performed with everyone from Muddy Waters to Lady Gaga. They have dozens of anthems.
For me, the choice is easy.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 3:45 pm to FortunateSon
quote:agreed for much the same reasons
For me, the choice is easy.
The Beatle were a Great pop band that played Great R&R on occasion
the Stones the Worlds Greatest Rock & Rolls Band
that created great . Blues, Country, Disco and some pop
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:04 pm to Pikes Peak Tiger
quote:
I'm a big fan of both, but the Beatles influence on pop music is undeniably more important
I agree with every word of this. Huge Stones fan.
I'm a big fan of both, but the Beatles influence on pop music is undeniably more important
quote:
I agree with this. But I like the Stones more.
While I don’t deny their importance to music and pop culture in general, I just don’t care for the Beatles music much at all.
I agree with every word of this. Huge Stones fan.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:06 pm to SaintlyTiger88
There's not a wrong answer. Both bands are legendary for a reason and people have their own preferences.
If I have to pick, I say Beatles just because their run was insane, then they morphed into solo careers that made it clear all 4 members were huge talents in their own right, nit just as a collective.
But again, either answer works.
If I have to pick, I say Beatles just because their run was insane, then they morphed into solo careers that made it clear all 4 members were huge talents in their own right, nit just as a collective.
But again, either answer works.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 4:47 pm to Rep520
quote:See part of my argument for the Stones as the greater band
then they morphed into solo careers that made it clear all 4 members were huge talents in their own right, nit just as a collective.
individually the Beatles had better careers
but as a band, the Stones achieved more as a group
Posted on 5/10/24 at 5:22 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:Is that really true? In the past 40 years, which Stones tunes are you big on? I would assume "Mixed Emotions" would have to be in there. And that one is...embarrassing.
but as a band, the Stones achieved more as a group
I get the longevity as a live act and going through the motions of nominally releasing new material to carry on the road. But come on. It's the same shite over and over. I'll agree that the Stones are the better touring band.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 6:02 pm to Big Scrub TX
I like both but for me it is the Beatles. They are just a phenomenon that can’t be equaled. Their accomplishments blow away all other acts.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 7:30 pm to Big Scrub TX
We can debate it. The Beatles were more experimental musically, but the Stones were always of a different cut. They were always pretty raw in terms of sound. The Stones though, put out some fantastic, if not their best work as a band from 1967 with Their Satanic Majesties Request to 1973/1974 and Goat's Head Soup. It's straight up rock with a bluesy country feel with Dead Flowers , Sweet Virginia and even Let it Bleed.
The Beatles were occupying a different lane though, it's hard to describe. They certainly mor experimental than the Stones and I would suggest that Harrison was a better guitarist than Keith Richards and probably Brian Jones. But, better than Mick Taylor, IMO it's debateable and I'll suggest that the current set up with Richards and Ronnie Wood is probably better in terms of musical talent than Harrison and Lennon. I think Ronnie Wood is underappreciated as a guitarist
As to songwriting , lyrically, it's the Beatles and it really is not close. Lennon and McCartney were just ridiculous in that sphere......particularly McCartney in the later years.
But, if you asked me which I prefer, it's The Rolling Stones. There's just something about their music. Can't explain it
The Beatles were occupying a different lane though, it's hard to describe. They certainly mor experimental than the Stones and I would suggest that Harrison was a better guitarist than Keith Richards and probably Brian Jones. But, better than Mick Taylor, IMO it's debateable and I'll suggest that the current set up with Richards and Ronnie Wood is probably better in terms of musical talent than Harrison and Lennon. I think Ronnie Wood is underappreciated as a guitarist
As to songwriting , lyrically, it's the Beatles and it really is not close. Lennon and McCartney were just ridiculous in that sphere......particularly McCartney in the later years.
But, if you asked me which I prefer, it's The Rolling Stones. There's just something about their music. Can't explain it
Posted on 5/10/24 at 8:51 pm to KiwiHead
quote:Jagger is an underrated lyricist
As to songwriting , lyrically, it's the Beatles and it really is not close. Lennon and McCartney were just ridiculous in that sphere......particularly McCartney in the later years.
Street Fighting Man
Paint it Black
Gimme Shelter
Shine a light,, about Brian Jones is an amazing tribute
Sympathy
Angie
a better political commentator overall than Lennon IMO
This post was edited on 5/10/24 at 8:53 pm
Posted on 5/10/24 at 8:58 pm to SaintlyTiger88
Neither
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:08 pm to OWLFAN86
He's not given the credit he deserves in that respect and he's always been deceptively political since the beginning.
Mother's Little Helper
19th Nervous Breakdown
Pain it Black
All very much social commentary
Gimme Shelter is possibly one of the most haunting and apocalyptic songs ever written, lots of war imagery provoked.
McCartney and Lennon were no slouches in the social commentary arena either but you're right on Jagger....his lyrics are much more raw and direct.
In that arena, though, I think Ray Davies beats them all.
Mother's Little Helper
19th Nervous Breakdown
Pain it Black
All very much social commentary
Gimme Shelter is possibly one of the most haunting and apocalyptic songs ever written, lots of war imagery provoked.
McCartney and Lennon were no slouches in the social commentary arena either but you're right on Jagger....his lyrics are much more raw and direct.
In that arena, though, I think Ray Davies beats them all.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:51 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
We can debate it. The Beatles were more experimental musically, but the Stones were always of a different cut. They were always pretty raw in terms of sound. The Stones though, put out some fantastic, if not their best work as a band from 1967 with Their Satanic Majesties Request to 1973/1974 and Goat's Head Soup. It's straight up rock with a bluesy country feel with Dead Flowers , Sweet Virginia and even Let it Bleed.
That's funny - those are literally my 2 favorites!
quote:Experimental...but almost always hitting the bullseye. It was never like "oh, at least they tried that, even if it wasn't that good". Virtually everything they did was spectacular. Seriously, IMO, just really not any misses (outside of like Revolution #9 or Wild Honey Pie, which I don't even take as serious).
The Beatles were occupying a different lane though, it's hard to describe. They certainly mor experimental than the Stones
I argue that they had the best song in any genre they tried - including "Oh, Darling" (Louisiana Swamp Rock).
For me the Stones' catalogue is very top heavy - and they DO have a very distinct sound with a scary edge to it (Gimme Shelter, Sympathy, etc.) They have like 7 of the greatest tunes of all time. But the Beatles have like 40.
quote:I care way less about this, but you're obviously right.
lyrically, it's the Beatles and it really is not close. Lennon and McCartney were just ridiculous in that sphere......particularly McCartney in the later years.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 9:53 pm to KiwiHead
quote:Of course it was Lennon who invented the template of rockstar/celebrity speaking out on social causes. Before The Beatles, famous people like shilled cigarettes and shite.
imme Shelter is possibly one of the most haunting and apocalyptic songs ever written, lots of war imagery provoked.
McCartney and Lennon were no slouches in the social commentary arena either but you're right on Jagger....his lyrics are much more raw and direct.
In that arena, though, I think Ray Davies beats them all.
And perhaps it was just after The Beatles, but Give Peace a Chance and all that probably literally influenced the politics of Vietnam. Certainly the White House thought so. I've never heard mention of any of the Stones in that same air.
Posted on 5/10/24 at 11:55 pm to SaintlyTiger88
The Rolling Stones were a cute blues band but the Beatles were on another level. Keith Richards said it himself. He told Paul McCartney “Man, you were lucky, you guys, you had four lead singers,’ whereas The Rolling Stones only had one.”
Posted on 5/11/24 at 12:32 am to Kafka
quote:
A sub-par album with at least 3 crushing all time classics
all of which were atrociously recorded
Post recording production by Phil Spector.
Let it Be… Naked nails the originals.
This post was edited on 5/11/24 at 12:34 am
Posted on 5/11/24 at 9:54 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
They have like 7 of the greatest tunes of all time. But the Beatles have like 40.
So true…and another 30 or so very very good songs. This is why they’re the GOAT’s IMO.
Posted on 5/11/24 at 10:55 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:we’re talking heroin with the President
And perhaps it was just after The Beatles, but Give Peace a Chance and all that probably literally influenced the politics of Vietnam. Certainly the White House thought so. I've never heard mention of any of the Stones in that same air.
“yes its a problem sir, but it can be bent”
Posted on 5/11/24 at 5:04 pm to TexTigah81
quote:
quote:
They have like 7 of the greatest tunes of all time. But the Beatles have like 40.
So true…and another 30 or so very very good songs. This is why they’re the GOAT’s IMO.
I was being conservative. My real number is like 110.
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News