quote:

Originally posted by P-Bo:

quote:

Originally posted by jumpin jack flash:

What an idiot! So yoru telling me, that brown sugar, jumpin jack flash, start me up, soound ANYTHING remotely like anythign teh Beatles created? The Stone used a lot more blues in their music, than the Beatles did, and Jagger ha d aharsher voice and the stone sin general created much harsher and gritier rock tunes..Your a twat if you think that teh Stones ripper off The Beatles.

Amazing response!!! In honor of your tact, understanding, and depth, I hereby announce that all forums are closed forever. Why should anyone try to match your wit and wisdom in the future when it is simply not possible? It is only fair that your post be the last post to ever grace the forums of Metacritic!!!! (Except for mine of course. Somebody has to be the Dennis Hopper to your Marlon Brando.)

well, sorry, if he hadn't created such an idiotic post n teh first place, I might of responded with something more intellectual. But as his post was so ridiculous, there was no way you could of responded with anyhting remotly intelligant. You have to fight stupidity with stupiddity sometimes. And you could of actually added to the conversation rather than whine, and moan.

quote:

You have to fight stupidity with stupiddity sometimes.

Best quote in the history of Metacritic...In regards to the Stones and Beatles, the Stones were and are an excellent reproduction of the Beatles. This isn't denying their influence on music as we know it, simply illustrated how closely the Stones and Beatles sound and how closely they are each remembered. In most cases, one cannot think of John Lennon or Mick Jagger seperately because they defined a decade or two. The main difference now is that the Stones still have a highly successful (although generally useless career now) while the Beatles can only be remember through their wonderful albums.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:

quote:

You have to fight stupidity with stupiddity sometimes.

Best quote in the history of Metacritic...In regards to the Stones and Beatles, the Stones were and are an excellent reproduction of the Beatles. This isn't denying their influence on music as we know it, simply illustrated how closely the Stones and Beatles sound and how closely they are each remembered. In most cases, one cannot think of John Lennon or Mick Jagger seperately because they defined a decade or two. The main difference now is that the Stones still have a highly successful (although generally useless career now) while the Beatles can only be remember through their wonderful albums.

No, they really wern't.

Here goes:

The Rolling Stones just in apperance were the alter ego of the Beatles. The Beatles dressed smartly and looked good, wearing suits and having the more respected appearence. They were viewed mor eby the public as the 'good boy' image. Then you had the Stones. The Stones were less respectable, they tried to look more rebellious, and they had a 'bad boy' image as it were. An image they would keep, during their various drug taking and other antics.

The bands were different entities live as well, who would you rather see live? The Rolling Stones or The Beatles? The Stones of course. They oozed Charisma, Mick Jagger was a much better showman and performer than the Beatles. The Beatles were more of a studio band than a live act. The Stones were a live act as well as producing some great albums. I mean teh Stones were able to make full scale riots at their concerts, when they performed 'Sympathy for the devil' which is IMo a masterclass of songwriting. Would the Beatles ever evoke that chaos? probaly not.

Now, to music. I don't see how you can honestly sit there and tell me that the majority of the Stones work sounded like the Beatles? Perhaps some of their sounded similair, but to be honest The Stones hits like Brown Sugar, Jumpin Jack Flash, Start me up, etc were much gritter and much more hard rock tunes as opposed to the Beatles much more pop orientated tunes such as 'let it be' 'yesterday' etc etc I believe much of the Stones good work to be much mor eblues infused. Sure the Stones wondered off that path into pop sometimes with songs like Angie, and certainly went into psyceldelica like the Beatles had at one point in their career, but that doesn't make them replicas. Everyone whose anyone has copied someone, around the time. Kiss copied Alice Cooper, to say that the Stones were repliacas of teh Beatles just because soem of their stuff sounded similair is stupid. So Yes copied Triumph did they? And Nazareth copied Led Zep? Just because there sound was similair at times, doesn't mean anything. The Stones were still producing original and great music. Normally around the same decade bands do produce the same TYPE music, unless theyre originators like The cure, Led Zep, Nirvana etc. The Stone iMo produced better music than the Beatles, an dthe majority of teh stuff they produced was much haser and gritter and ta time much more blues infused than the pop infused Beatles.

VERY difficult! Well... (all tie):

-Helmet
-Kyuss
-Jimi Hendrix Experience
-Led Zeppelin
-Buffalo Tom

The Stones were only a better live band than The Beatles because The Beatles crowds were so loud that they and the crowd could barely hear them. The Beatles produced far superior music (and albums) than did The Stones. The Beatles consistently evolved over their career without care for market trends, The Stones on the other hand, took a sound and stuck with it their entire career, venturing out occassionally to attempt to fit into the trends of the time, which I feel tarnished their legacy. Personally I don't think The Stones sound much like The Beatles at all, The Stones sound like the classic stereotype of white boys playing the blues, without the personal charisma and media hype they'd be just another footnote like The Paul Butterfield Blues Band or something. I'd listen to Drivin' Wheel over Start Me Up any day!

1. The Band
2. Bob Dylan
3. The Beatles
4. Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers
5. Traveling Wilburys

If you haven't already, do yourself a favor and watch "The Last Waltz." It is the most amazing concert I have ever seen. The Band rules

1. Pink Floyd
2. The Grateful Dead
3. Jimmy Buffett
4. Billy Joel
5. Radiohead

Pink Floyd, The Jimi Hendrix Experience, and The Doors (Jim Morrison is my idol) 0wn all classic rock bands because of the ideas/thoughts/experimenting they were placing within their music. No band before the 90s comes close to these three (except perhaps Neil Young and the Beatles) and they're all tied for the number one rock n' roll band of all time in my opinion. Following these 3 are the Grateful Dead (Note: this is the only jam band i will listen to), and then following the Dead is Guns N' Roses........... only because they were my first favorite band but still Estranged, Rocket Queen, Breakdown, Coma is some pretty sick stuff.

Ok and now for the 5 BEST BANDS of all time (no particular order)

Pavement
Flaming Lips
Built to Spill
Guided By Voices
Neutral Milk Hotel

Before i post this just a sample of Jim Morrison's power:

They are saying, "Forget the night.
Live with us in forests of azure.
Out here on the perimeter there are no stars
Out here we is stoooned - immaculate."
-ammmmmmaaazing

quote:

Originally posted by Smenkharon:
The Stones were only a better live band than The Beatles because The Beatles crowds were so loud that they and the crowd could barely hear them. The Beatles produced far superior music (and albums) than did The Stones. The Beatles consistently evolved over their career without care for market trends, The Stones on the other hand, took a sound and stuck with it their entire career, venturing out occassionally to attempt to fit into the trends of the time, which I feel tarnished their legacy. Personally I don't think The Stones sound much like The Beatles at all, The Stones sound like the classic stereotype of white boys playing the blues, without the personal charisma and media hype they'd be just another footnote like The Paul Butterfield Blues Band or something. I'd listen to Drivin' Wheel over Start Me Up any day!

The Stones were better live, because the Beatles were boring, and had no charisma or stage presence. The rollin Stones caused riots at their concerts for cryin out loud. I don't know how you can see unopinionated that the Beatles produced far superior music. Because like all bands, some of the stuff Beatles produced was better than some of the stuff the Rolling Stones produced and vice versa. The Stones took a sound and stuck with it? So their forrays into blues, and psycedelicas don't count as branching out? Because it seems to be like your talking rubbish. The Stones changed their style a lot. They had hard hitting rock tunes such as Brown sugar, and pop ballads such as angie. They did moving ballads such as wild horses and gritty tunes such as start me up. Umm no, the beatles were always the one with the footnote of 'typical white boy rock band' not the Stones. Yes you said it, the Stones had far better charisma, far better chemistry, and they had 'IT'. The Beatles had 'IT' too, but they were very predictable and boring. Another footote? I think not. Without media hype? The Beatles would be nothing without hype. Every band would be nothing without charisma, media hype and stereotypes!

We get it!!! You like The Stones. I won't say that they weren't a decent band; they were. I will compare them to the seasons. They were fresh and new in the spring. Hot in the summer. The problem is that in the fall, they dried up and died. Unfortunately, nobody shared this with the band and they have reached the winter of their careers. And it's gonna be a long, cold, harsh, winter. RIP Mick and co. We had some good times, now please, put down the instruments and walk away.

quote:

Umm no, the beatles were always the one with the footnote of 'typical white boy rock band' not the Stones.

I beg to differ. Perhaps you are blinded by your love of The Stones. I'm here to inform you that The Beatles cataloug contains more than "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love". The Beatles are placed on a pedestal which they absolutely deserve, like them or hate them. Their cataloug is extensive, experimental, and truly inspirational. They began as a band with heavy influence from the blues and American rock and they morphed and grew into a band with many styles and textures. I can name at least 30 songs by The Beatles that, in my opinion and the opinion of many, completely trump the entire cataloug of The Stones. My suggestion to you is to pawn off your Rolling Stones collection of albums, pajamas, t-shirts, kung-fu-grip action figures, plates, board games, collectable mugs, pennants, and bobble-head dolls, and invest in the following items for starters.

Rubber Soul
Revolver
Abbey Road
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band

You may have to come out of pocket a bit but it's worth it.

Not to diss the Beatles, because I think they're great, but I've got to side with Jumpin' Jack and say nobody beats the Stones.

It's tough to compare the two, because they're really different bands. Where the Beatles placed emphasis on musical inventiveness, the Stones were more about rawness, energy, and social commentary.

My problem with the Beatles is that I tend to be more a fan of songs than the albums. I find even their best albums to contain more than a few songs I could care less about. For every "Happiness is a Warm Gun" and "Sexy Sadie", there's an "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da".

On the other hand, I can sit and listen to Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, or Exile on Main Street, and not hit the skip button once. Those are terrific albums.

And P-Bo, I could name 30 Stones songs that could easily give those 30 Beatles songs a run for their money.

quote:

Originally posted by P-Bo:
We get it!!! You like The Stones. I won't say that they weren't a decent band; they were. I will compare them to the seasons. They were fresh and new in the spring. Hot in the summer. The problem is that in the fall, they dried up and died. Unfortunately, nobody shared this with the band and they have reached the winter of their careers. And it's gonna be a long, cold, harsh, winter. RIP Mick and co. We had some good times, now please, put down the instruments and walk away.

quote:

Umm no, the beatles were always the one with the footnote of 'typical white boy rock band' not the Stones.

I beg to differ. Perhaps you are blinded by your love of The Stones. I'm here to inform you that The Beatles cataloug contains more than "Love Me Do" and "Can't Buy Me Love". The Beatles are placed on a pedestal which they absolutely deserve, like them or hate them. Their cataloug is extensive, experimental, and truly inspirational. They began as a band with heavy influence from the blues and American rock and they morphed and grew into a band with many styles and textures. I can name at least 30 songs by The Beatles that, in my opinion and the opinion of many, completely trump the entire cataloug of The Stones. My suggestion to you is to pawn off your Rolling Stones collection of albums, pajamas, t-shirts, kung-fu-grip action figures, plates, board games, collectable mugs, pennants, and bobble-head dolls, and invest in the following items for starters.

Rubber Soul
Revolver
Abbey Road
Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band

You may have to come out of pocket a bit but it's worth it.

Actually, The Stones arn't even my favourite bands. i do prefer them to the Beatles though. I never said the Beatles catalougue was never expensive, or experimental. But the point I was making is, is that a lot of the Beatles stuff was boring. Sure, they did some really innovative stuff too, but like you said Love me do, let It be, Penny lane etc etc are all generic pop tunes. I would like you to see any Beatles song that caused such controversy as 'Sympathy for the devil'. The Stones songs were different than the Beatles. Start me up, Jumpin jack flash, brown sugar, paint it black are all amazing rock tunes. And to me they are better than all of the beatles stuff except a few select songs. I mean Ellena Rigby is my favourite beatles tune, but I don't think that stands up to some of the Stones stuff I like. It's down to opionona nd what you prfer. Gritty, hard rock or softer pop/rock>?

I didn't see these bands mentioned and I think that they were highly influential:

1. King Crimson-

They pretty much kicked off the prog rock movement. Whether or not that's a good or bad thing is up for debate.

2. Thin Lizzy-

Inspired a lot of the metal acts of the 80's to include two guitar players, and Phil Lynott style of singing and songwriting has been emulated but never duplicated.

3. Cheap Trick-

Were a favorite band among a lot of the 90's rock acts like The Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, and Green Day. You can hear their sound in some of those songs. Rick Nielsen never gets enough credit as a songwriter, guitar player, and distinguished rock personality.

4. T. Rex-

Marc Bolan's guitar style was inspirational to some of the 80's post punk rockers like Johnny Marr and Will Seargant. His personality and songwriting style were also very influential.

5. The Stooges-

They were the first punk rock band to my knowledge. No one was as raw as Iggy.

1. The Rolling Stones
2. The Beatles
3. Pink Floyd
4. Clash
5. The Jimi Hendrix Experience

[honorable mention]
Eagles, REM, Doors, Radiohead, Coldplay, Blue October, Nirvana, Collective Soul, Who, Eagles, The White Stripes.

to continue the NEVERENDING debate concerning the Stones and the Beatles.
The Stones were like the alter ego of the Beatles. And the Stones were heavily influence by the beatles, but they were completely different bands altogether. I dont think the Stones influenced the beatles at all. Beatles were the trend setters.
If the beatles stayed together, I dont think they would have EVER succummed to disco like the stones did on Emotional Rescue.
Another point is the beatles changed and evolved like no other band in history. They could write any form or style of music they wanted. The stones stuck with R&B for the most part. (disco aside) I like the stones alot, they are a great band. I do think they are boring on stage, consider the super bowl appearance. Mick is a great showman and has great personality, but to say that he had more than John??? John could sit in a bed for a week with a wacked out japanese woman and still draw world wide attention. Even with a bag over his head.
On the let if be movie the beatles did the live show on the roof of abbey road. A technique imitated by other bands over the years. That was a great show! But, the beatles stopped touring at a time when they truly developed musically. So we dont really now what their show would have been like in the modern day format of a rock show.
top 5 bands:
1 beatles
2 REM
3 Who
4 tori amos ( I know not a band)
5 U2

Disco or not, "Emotional Rescue" is still a pretty great track, proving that the stones were way more than a one trick pony, as you suggest.

Also, don't judge their stage show on what you saw at the Super Bowl this year. They're a bunch of 60+ year old men.

I guess alot depends on what you look for in a band when considering beatles vs. Stones. I look for musical composition. I dont think they are equal, but for the sake of arguement let's say both bands put out equally good musical compositions.
Then I look at ability to sing. Let's face it-the stones don't have anyone that has a GREAT singing voice. Mick is awlful live, even in the old days. Beatles had two great singers and one other pretty good singer in Harrison. Their ability to harmonize has yet to be out done.
Okay next, technique. Paul is a great bass player, I think very under-rated. Wyman is kind of boring ( except on sympathy for the devil). Watts is definately a boring drummer. Ringo, although not great in the technical sense, did provide some really good beats and off beats. Ron Wood is a good guitar player, very under-rated. Brian Jones was OK. I really don't like Richard's guitar playing all that much. John is ok. George harrison was a very precise lead guitar player. His notes are always right on. Simliar in style to Clapton, just not as fast.
Then I look at body of work. For the short span of time that the beatles were together they put out an unequalled body of work. Yes a few sappy pop songs, but each album is very strong. Stones had some great albums as well, my fav is some girls. But, they have been together for like 90 years and I dont think they had as many amazing, ground breaking albums as the beatles did in their 7 years of recording.
But finally it all does come down to personal taste. Both bands the are leaders and the cornerstones of rock. If either Band had not come along Rock would not have developed. In todays commercialized environment with more emphasis put on fashion and easily digested radio songs, it is good that both bands did come along and provide us with a great body of work. Rock will never be the same that it was-innocent yet rebellious. Today's rock doesn't really seem to challenge us anymore. To me it seems bands like Marylin Manson have nothing more than shock value to offer us. So I feel lucky to have experienced both the beatles and the stones. Had I grown up with today's music I am not sure I would understood the real meaning of Rock and what is has to offer.

I'm not ashamed to say that I'm a Beatles guy, and I'll explain why in a minute. I REALLY love the Stones, at least until about 1972. They may have put out some good songs afterwards, but I honestly don't really CARE about any of their music for the last 30 years.

I don't know if it's the same with younger generations (I bet it is), but here's the story with the older generations. The guys who think they're macho ladykillers love the Stones more than those wimpy Beatles and all their love shit. If you actually believe in love and don't care if somebody wants to call you some emo punk, then you can love the Beatles more. It seems to be more about some pose than about the actual truth and brilliance of each band's music. Go ahead, call me an emo punk. Wtf do I care?

quote:

Originally posted by jumpin jack flash:
The Stones were better live, because the Beatles were boring, and had no charisma or stage presence. The rollin Stones caused riots at their concerts for cryin out loud. The Beatles had 'IT' too, but they were very predictable and boring.

GASP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow, I'm speechless... No wait, here it comes.
I can understand liking the Stones better than the Beatles, (maybe) but countering with a claim that the Beatles had no charisma, and were boring and predicatable is pretty much the most absurd thing I have ever heard.
So, the Stones had loud and soft music. So did Poison. The Stones were a great band, but to say that they possesed the variety and creativity that the Beatles did is completely false. Their forays into psychedelic music, etc. only came after the Beatles had done it.

So, while I'm here...

1. The Beatles

(insert light years here)


2. Radiohead
3. The Pixies
4. The Velvet Underground
5. The Band

Dylan doesn't count, right?


PS: If it's the Altamont riots you're referring to, I wouldn't use that to support the cause of the Stones. Bad move on their part.

As far as i know, the beatles were friends with the rolling stones back in the sixties. I doubt John would bash the rolling stones, or likewise. But if anyone had evidence, i'd stand corrected. If i SAW it, that is. But my bands, in no order, are as follows:
The Beatles
The Rolling Stones
The Eagles, for the country touch that means so much
Stevie Ray Vaughan and Double Trouble, isn't it? They didn't dish out alot of material, but i love their stuff.
aand.. Paul McCartney and Wings
this is just the stuff i like to listen to, but that's my favs.