Home | Community | Message Board

Kratom Eye
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]
The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones
    #20110691 -

Somehow these two bands get compared all the time. One is the antithesis of the other and all that crap. I don't get it, for one, the two bands sound totally different, and the other more important reason is that the Stones could never wish to be on the same planet as the Beatles, in my opinion of course.

I mean, Sgt Peppers pinned up against Their Satanic Majesties Request? come on, not even close. The Stones could only wish they were as good as the Beatles. Again, I feel they were two totally different bands, but people love to compare them, so I figured, why not? I haven't seen a thread like this so I figured I'd see how it goes.

That being said, I do enjoy some of the Stones music. I prefer their early stuff, real early. When they were very sloppy, raw and bluesy in the beginning is the stuff I prefer. Songs like "It's All Over Now", "Time Is On My Side" and all that was great. I basically like from 64-72. Once Some Girls came out they lost me, and I know that album is renowned as one of the greatest, but it wasn't for me. I actually hated them from that point on. "She's So Cold" and "Shattered" are two of the worst songs I think I've ever heard. It's just Jagger screaming nonsense, terrible stuff in my opinion.

So yes, there are Stones songs I like, but as far as albums go, they sucked. I've tried downloading their albums, and even the era I liked, the real early stuff, but the albums as a whole were garbage. The Beatles on the other hand, I love and own the entire catalog and it's all great to me. I understand the Stones have been around forever, have toured forever, where as the Beatles stuck to the studio. Still though, when it came to song writing, it's not even close.

So, I want to see what you all on the Shroomery think. I know I'll get a lot of people who are going to say "Neither", they both suck" and what not, and that's totally cool too. However, I'd like to keep it so that fans of at least one of the bands post. Feel free to express your opinion though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20110707 -

I never got into the stones at all. I love the beatles though from about rubber soul on.


--------------------
Man says, "God, show me and I will believe." God says, "Believe and I will show you."

Edited by Aiko Aiko (06/10/14 05:04 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Aiko Aiko]
    #20110715 -

Always been a beatles guy myself.  But hey sympathy for the devil is an awesome song.  They've got a few gems the stones.


--------------------
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an
invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, conn a ship, write a
sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the
dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve an
equation, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a
computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Specialization is for insects.- Robert A. Heinlein
Saint RedBow of the Shroomey Loomey-Patron Saint of Sandbaggin Sumbitchs

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20110717 -

I don't know a whole lot of The Rolling Stones' songs, but one in particular that sticks out is "Miss you". It sticks out to me, because when I went to see the Mike Gordon band a couple months ago tripping balls in a pitch black room full of strangers, they played that song and it was a shred of familiarity in a world of chaos and confusion.

I like a lot of The Beatles' stuff.

Also, "Paint it Black" by TRS is a good one, I had that song as the music for my part in a skateboarding movie me and some friends threw together back in the day.


--------------------
"Ur cat died because he hated u" - Koods
"I hope JSB kicks your ass one day." - Vandago
"you are the biggest 'internet guy' I have ever come across"- Jokeshopbeard
"The more I see you post the more I realize you're just this fuckin tie dye loser who trolls the Shroomery 24/7." - Herbologist
"Sheekle you cannot vile the dice of bullshit you have posted on this forum over the years, I like databases" - thelastoneleft
"or maybe i just come from a blood line of superior intelligence" - trees

R.I.P Kelsy, ?/?/?? - 6/11/16

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Sheekle]
    #20110738 -

Aiko Aiko said:
I never got into the stones at all. I love the beatles though from about rubber soul on.



Good shit, I love all the Beatles stuff though, even the early poppy stuff, it sounds dated now, but at that time, the shit was revolutionary.

TheGreenArrow said:
Always been a beatles guy myself.  But hey sympathy for the devil is an awesome song.  They've got a few gems the stones.



Totally agree, they made their money off singles. They had their gems but could not cut an album like The Beatles could.

Sheekle said:
I don't know a whole lot of The Rolling Stones' songs, but one in particular that sticks out is "Miss you". It sticks out to me, because when I went to see the Mike Gordon band a couple months ago tripping balls in a pitch black room full of strangers, they played that song and it was a shred of familiarity in a world of chaos and confusion.

I like a lot of The Beatles' stuff.

Also, "Paint it Black" by TRS is a good one, I had that song as the music for my part in a skateboarding movie me and some friends threw together back in the day.



Paint It Black is great, that's the early stuff which I love. It's a single of theirs too which is good. The albums suck because the songs that you don't know about, you don't know about for a reason. :lol:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20110766 -

i prefer the stones

never much liked the beatles, not even in the slightest

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20110832 -

The Monkees are better.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Murph]
    #20110849 -

Both are fantastic bands!  That being said The Beatles I think are slightly better then The Rolling Stones


--------------------

"There are a million reasons to drink and one just popped into my head.  If a man can't drink when he's living how the Hell can he drink when he's dead?" - Irish Limerick
I PLURed once because it was PLUR or die. - D.M.T.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: The Doobie Dude]
    #20110888 -

These bands aren't even comparable. The stones aren't that great though, IMO.


--------------------
No sympathy for the devil, keep that in mind.
[url=
]Buy the ticket, take the ride. [/url]
Are you lost?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20110899 -

I think a better one is The Beatles vs. The Beach Boys because they were both influenced by each other.

I prefer The Beach Boys

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Sheekle]
    #20110910 -

The beetles came first and when they hit this country in 63 it was major cultural phenomena. Beetlemania really was a mania. It's hard to know if any 60's rock would have been real big if the beetles had not set the stage for it. But the last beetles live show was in 66, and once they became a recording only band it took away from their reputation.

    The Stones started slower. Their manager Andrew Loog Oldham came up with the marketing idea that since the beetles were nice guys, the Stones would be their antithesis and be the bad guys. Their entire first album is covers of blues and when Oldam told them to write the next album themselves, they didn't know if they has any capacity to write. Eventually by 65 Richards wrote Satisfaction so they had a number one American hit for a successful tour. The Stones hit their stride when they kicked out original Founder Brian Jones and replaced him with 20 year old virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor. At the same time the added Producer Jimmy Miller and band hit its great creative peak with Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. This brought the band into the 70s and they attained the title of World Greatest Rock and Roll Band just as the beetles were fading out the picture. The 69 Altamonte free concert with one fan killed by Hell's Angel security was viewed as a tragedy, but for the Stones it was a coup, and for years later their evil satanic image was no joke


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.

Simulacrum
The truth which conceals that there is none

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Brian Jones]
    #20110930 -

Beggars Banquet:thumbup:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Brian Jones]
    #20111006 -

Legend said:
These bands aren't even comparable. The stones aren't that great though, IMO.



I agree, I even stated that in the first post. I only compared them because it's what I hear all the time.

clock_of_omens said:
I think a better one is The Beatles vs. The Beach Boys because they were both influenced by each other.

I prefer The Beach Boys



I would definitely put the Beatles first, but, that is by no means a shot at the Beach Boys. I love them, most notably Pet Sounds and Smiley Smile. Amazing stuff, Brian Wilson was brilliant. Also, as you said, they both fed off of each other. Sgt. Peppers wouldn't have been what it was if not for Pet Sounds, and the energy kind of just goes back and forth between the two bands. It's a shame Brian Wilson destroyed himself, what a fucking talent.


Brian Jones said:
The beetles came first and when they hit this country in 63 it was major cultural phenomena. Beetlemania really was a mania. It's hard to know if any 60's rock would have been real big if the beetles had not set the stage for it. But the last beetles live show was in 66, and once they became a recording only band it took away from their reputation.

    The Stones started slower. Their manager Andrew Loog Oldham came up with the marketing idea that since the beetles were nice guys, the Stones would be their antithesis and be the bad guys. Their entire first album is covers of blues and when Oldam told them to write the next album themselves, they didn't know if they has any capacity to write. Eventually by 65 Richards wrote Satisfaction so they had a number one American hit for a successful tour. The Stones hit their stride when they kicked out original Founder Brian Jones and replaced him with 20 year old virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor. At the same time the added Producer Jimmy Miller and band hit its great creative peak with Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street. This brought the band into the 70s and they attained the title of World Greatest Rock and Roll Band just as the beetles were fading out the picture. The 69 Altamonte free concert with one fan killed by Hell's Angel security was viewed as a tragedy, but for the Stones it was a coup, and for years later their evil satanic image was no joke



I prefer the Brian Jones era personally, I thought he was the best thing they had going for them. I mean, I speak only from my point of view, their fame and success speaks for itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20111010 -

I have just about all of both bands albums and appreciate them as two totally different styles. Beatles are better song writers especially when it comes to experimental, psychedelic rock and pop but The Stones write better straight forward blues rock.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20111027 -

peace of mind 1 said:
clock_of_omens said:
I think a better one is The Beatles vs. The Beach Boys because they were both influenced by each other.

I prefer The Beach Boys



I would definitely put the Beatles first, but, that is by no means a shot at the Beach Boys. I love them, most notably Pet Sounds and Smiley Smile. Amazing stuff, Brian Wilson was brilliant. Also, as you said, they both fed off of each other. Sgt. Peppers wouldn't have been what it was if not for Pet Sounds, and the energy kind of just goes back and forth between the two bands. It's a shame Brian Wilson destroyed himself, what a fucking talent.




Indeed, and The Beach Boys wouldn't have been inspired to move past surf rock and make Pet Sounds if it weren't for Rubber Soul. I agree about Brian Wilson. He definitely could have made some more amazing albums.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: clock_of_omens]
    #20111136 -

This thread reminds me of this song.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Aiko Aiko]
    #20111313 -

Aiko Aiko said:
I never got into the stones at all. I love the beatles though from about rubber soul on.



same.


--------------------
I'm up to my ears in unwritten words. - J.D. Salinger

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #20111370 -

I love the Stones and I love the Beatles as well.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: duff monkey]
    #20111371 -

duff monkey said:
Beggars Banquet:thumbup:



Beggars Banquet
Exile on Main Street
Get Your Ya Ya's Out
Love You Live


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones [Re: Le_Canard]
    #20111394 -

ToiletDuk said:
I love the Stones and I love the Beatles as well.



I suppose that's the best way to have it. I don't hate the Stones, I just don't see why they are as legendary as they are. I mean, they were definitely one of the first bands to do what they did, but as far as talent and song writing goes, it's definitely a tough one. Regardless, their are songs of theirs I love, no doubt about that. I don't mind the 64 - 72 period. The albums as a whole never did it for me though.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |  [ show all ]


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* The Rolling Stones - "Cocksucker Blues" LearyfanS 1,776 5 12/01/09 11:56 PM
by Learyfan
* John Lennon - "Rolling Stone LSD Interview" (mp3) LearyfanS 1,541 2 07/30/03 12:03 PM
by Anonymous
* Rolling Stone Pickard Article
( 1 2 3 4 all )
theocean06 50,719 78 03/03/13 08:54 AM
by Learyfan
* Grateful Dead article in latest Rolling Stone magazine LearyfanS 2,553 9 09/05/05 01:15 PM
by Gr8fulJ420
* The Rolling Stones... OneMoreRobot3021 514 4 05/10/05 01:24 PM
by California
* Buddy Holly: Master Dreamcrafter, Rock-n-Roll Messiah I_Fart_Blue 1,884 6 04/30/03 05:20 PM
by I_Fart_Blue
* Rolling Stones & Pearl Jam RandalFlagg 1,068 8 09/29/05 04:49 PM
by drtyfrnk
* Help me choose...v Sterile 1,209 9 05/20/05 02:46 PM
by emptywisdom

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
5,132 topic views. 2 members, 11 guests and 315 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.035 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 16 queries.