logical muse
LogMu
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,050
Perhaps you can tell from my sig? 
Beatles or Stones?
- Thread starter ruach1
- Start date
Patricio Elicer
Obsessed with Reality
Let me add The Shadows, great English band of the 60's (they came before the Beatles), usually unjustly forgotten.
Your list is too short. Let me add: Yes, Emerson-Lake & Palmer, King Crimson, Camel, Genesis, Rick Wakeman, Procol Harum, Deep Purple, The Enid, Pendragon, Van Der Graaf Generator, Alan Parsons Project ....
Last edited:
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
A little lighter fare... (I think)
Beatles or Stones?
(You know what I mean.)
The general consensus is that the Beatles were the greatest rock and roll band ever. To me that is a tough argument to make in as much as the Beatles only recorded, really, a handful of rock and roll songs. I was always a big Beatles fan and had most of their albums, but I would have to say they were a pop ensemble and not a rock band at all. In fact, by the late sixties they were hardly a band at all - their records were all studio concoctions and they rarely even occupied the studio at the same time. My fondness for the Rolling Stones has increased vastly over the year. They represent the originals of what a rock band should be - the original garage band. Rock and Roll should be guitar music and not played by an orchestra. Let me see, would I rather be driving down the road listening to Let it be or Let it Bleed? Would I rather be listening to Satisfaction and Jumpin Jack Flash and Gimme Shelter and Honky Tonk Woman or Dear Prudence and Octopuses Garden and When I'm 64???? Duh? Also, honestly, I think Credence Clearwater and John Fogerty deserve to be ranked up there with the Rolling Stones.
LordoftheLeftHand
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2005
- Messages
- 1,188
Ripley Twenty-Nine
Muse
- Joined
- May 2, 2005
- Messages
- 849
I tend to have a very 'woo' debating style when it comes to the Beatles..
When anyone suggests that The Beatles is not the best band of all time, I immediately stop listening to them and walk away.
When anyone suggests that The Beatles is not the best band of all time, I immediately stop listening to them and walk away.
Jesus
Demon in Disguise
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Messages
- 476
I love the "woo woo" parts. It gives the tune this wild, orgy-like quality to it. But the guitar solo is an abosolutely necessary part, too. The sound is so feral, so evil, so searing...I like it.
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Freebird!!!! Oh God no!!! I would rather have electrodes attached to my intimate parts for 3 hours than listen to Freebird for 20 minutes. IMHO it is like an incredibly dreary dirge.
Marquis de Carabas
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2002
- Messages
- 27,071
The Beatles and the Stones are essentially the same thing and should be regarded as such. They served as the twin prongs in Satan's scheme to infiltrate American culture with paganism and devil-worship. The Beatles started out so nice and loveable, and then slowly began to reveal their devilry. By then, though, it was too late. We had lost our teenagers to the Prince of Lies. Then there were the Stones--obviously an undisguised glorification of all that is base and ungodly. The softening effect of the Beatles, however, had paved the way in kids' heads and Satan strolled right in on the lips of Mick Jagger.
Of course, since that time, music has gotten progressively more open in its veneration of Lucifer. Witness the vague paganism of Led Zeppelin that gave rise to the Satanic praises of Black Sabbath and eventually the baby-torturing goat-raping of Cannibal Corpse.
In light of all this, I have to vote for Stryper.
Of course, since that time, music has gotten progressively more open in its veneration of Lucifer. Witness the vague paganism of Led Zeppelin that gave rise to the Satanic praises of Black Sabbath and eventually the baby-torturing goat-raping of Cannibal Corpse.
In light of all this, I have to vote for Stryper.
ruach1
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2005
- Messages
- 561
When comparing these two supergroups, the first question following the original seems to be: What criteria are you using to judge? Since the question was left open (purposely in the hope of adding other aspects of the respective rock/pop bands to the debate) then the sole criteria is not just one thing over the rest but a compilation of the "total package" so to speak.
On the list of evaluative criteria in this situation, the music should be number one. To this number one list of criteria, I would say that declaring one band over the other would largely be a subjective decision. The Beatles, in their music, had a positive, cheerful, open energy which, with the help of George Martin (and certain other inspirations), developed and expanded on a still unprecedented scale over their seven year recording span. The Stones had/have a direct musical channel into the libidinous, rebellious soul of rock n' roll and R&B which has a way of effecting the collective rock n' roll soul in ways the Beatles could not. So on the basis of music, it seems that when we answer the question, we are really disclosing who we are more than we are evaluating who is better.
Yet when we take into consideration more than how the music of the respective bands effects us, then the answer as to which band is greater, Beatles or Stones? the answer, without question, is the Beatles. The Beatles were entertaining and effective on a scale which has made them icons of the twentieth century. In recording, radio, TV, movies, and live performance (still the only band to date who could not tour on account of popularity, collective hysteria, and musical complexity) the Beatles reached heights and achieved innovations which are nothing short of phenomenal in their day and being copied, without similar success, in our own. There are also other aspects of the Beatles' particular affect on the world that, when taken into account, propel them above the rest making them the greatest rock/pop band of all time such as social involvement, politics, religion, art, fashion, and finance. For better or for worse, the Beatles had an affect on the world in ways no band has since.
But the biggest reason why the Beatles are greater than the Stones is due to their contribution to the musical form known as popular rock n' roll. When rock first came upon the scene, it was a music which tapped the energy of the human libido in a direct and obvious manner. When it "went public" with the convergence of "negro" R&B and Country/Western in Elvis Presley, a musical phenomenon was in the making which would energize people in a way not seen before in the history of the world. But by the late fifties and early sixties, the first generation of authentic rockers had disapeared from "the scene." Chuck Barry and Jerry Lee Lewis were ostracized due to sex scandals. Buddy Holley, Richie Valens, and the Big Bopper had died, and the King himself, Elvis, got drafted in the US Army. By the early sixties, the first generation rockers who tapped into and expressed the rebellion and energy of rock n' roll had been replaced by perfectly groomed teens with a modicum of talent who were both found acceptable by the establishment and used as cash cows by a music industry that knew what they were onto.
When the Beatles came on the scene, they were able to save rock n' roll from its seeming early death by tapping that energy in new and even more energetic ways while still being acceptable to the masses--especially to all those millions of baby-boomer kids. The perfect example of this dual ability is their version of "Twist and Shout." On the surface it is an upbeat and energetic song about a girl dancing about which even the queen did not object in concert. But below the surface, "Twist and Shout" is not as much about dancing as it is about something else. When we hear the "ahh, AHHHH, AHHHHH!" section, you can hear a girl, not dancing, but having a frenzied orgasm which, as published accounts tell us, the members of the Beatles heard quite often. Yes, there were many bands, the Stones among them, who were talented in their own right. But no one can be certain how or whether they would have been effective and accepted if it hadn't been for the Beatles before them.
Then three years later, after the initial wave of Beatlemania and the British Invasion, the Beatles did something with music which none had thought possible. With the help of record producer George Martin, the Beatles released the "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album which was like nothing pop Western culture had ever seen before. The album achieved acclaim and praise for numerous reasons and from numerous people--professionals and non-professionals alike. But mostly, SPLCB made rock/pop the free-est and most inclusive form of music in the history of the world because no other musical form before had incorporated such a wide variety of sounds and styles on one album or in one genre and made it "work." The following effect on the culture as well as other pop/rock musicians (including the Stones) was nothing short of monumental. And though some Beatle band members said they were moved to make SPLCB out of inspirations from The Beach Boys and Ravi Shankarr, still, neither they nor anyone else produced a work that was as effective or as widely acclaimed.
Simply put, the Beatles deserve the number one spot on the greatest band of all time list because they saved rock n' roll: first from an early death, commercialism, and mediocrity and secondly by raising the standards of the musical form to heights previously unimagined. For all of us who enjoy, have been effected by, and value rock/pop, we should all be grateful to at least some degree.
Beatles or Stones?
Beatles
On the list of evaluative criteria in this situation, the music should be number one. To this number one list of criteria, I would say that declaring one band over the other would largely be a subjective decision. The Beatles, in their music, had a positive, cheerful, open energy which, with the help of George Martin (and certain other inspirations), developed and expanded on a still unprecedented scale over their seven year recording span. The Stones had/have a direct musical channel into the libidinous, rebellious soul of rock n' roll and R&B which has a way of effecting the collective rock n' roll soul in ways the Beatles could not. So on the basis of music, it seems that when we answer the question, we are really disclosing who we are more than we are evaluating who is better.
Yet when we take into consideration more than how the music of the respective bands effects us, then the answer as to which band is greater, Beatles or Stones? the answer, without question, is the Beatles. The Beatles were entertaining and effective on a scale which has made them icons of the twentieth century. In recording, radio, TV, movies, and live performance (still the only band to date who could not tour on account of popularity, collective hysteria, and musical complexity) the Beatles reached heights and achieved innovations which are nothing short of phenomenal in their day and being copied, without similar success, in our own. There are also other aspects of the Beatles' particular affect on the world that, when taken into account, propel them above the rest making them the greatest rock/pop band of all time such as social involvement, politics, religion, art, fashion, and finance. For better or for worse, the Beatles had an affect on the world in ways no band has since.
But the biggest reason why the Beatles are greater than the Stones is due to their contribution to the musical form known as popular rock n' roll. When rock first came upon the scene, it was a music which tapped the energy of the human libido in a direct and obvious manner. When it "went public" with the convergence of "negro" R&B and Country/Western in Elvis Presley, a musical phenomenon was in the making which would energize people in a way not seen before in the history of the world. But by the late fifties and early sixties, the first generation of authentic rockers had disapeared from "the scene." Chuck Barry and Jerry Lee Lewis were ostracized due to sex scandals. Buddy Holley, Richie Valens, and the Big Bopper had died, and the King himself, Elvis, got drafted in the US Army. By the early sixties, the first generation rockers who tapped into and expressed the rebellion and energy of rock n' roll had been replaced by perfectly groomed teens with a modicum of talent who were both found acceptable by the establishment and used as cash cows by a music industry that knew what they were onto.
When the Beatles came on the scene, they were able to save rock n' roll from its seeming early death by tapping that energy in new and even more energetic ways while still being acceptable to the masses--especially to all those millions of baby-boomer kids. The perfect example of this dual ability is their version of "Twist and Shout." On the surface it is an upbeat and energetic song about a girl dancing about which even the queen did not object in concert. But below the surface, "Twist and Shout" is not as much about dancing as it is about something else. When we hear the "ahh, AHHHH, AHHHHH!" section, you can hear a girl, not dancing, but having a frenzied orgasm which, as published accounts tell us, the members of the Beatles heard quite often. Yes, there were many bands, the Stones among them, who were talented in their own right. But no one can be certain how or whether they would have been effective and accepted if it hadn't been for the Beatles before them.
Then three years later, after the initial wave of Beatlemania and the British Invasion, the Beatles did something with music which none had thought possible. With the help of record producer George Martin, the Beatles released the "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" album which was like nothing pop Western culture had ever seen before. The album achieved acclaim and praise for numerous reasons and from numerous people--professionals and non-professionals alike. But mostly, SPLCB made rock/pop the free-est and most inclusive form of music in the history of the world because no other musical form before had incorporated such a wide variety of sounds and styles on one album or in one genre and made it "work." The following effect on the culture as well as other pop/rock musicians (including the Stones) was nothing short of monumental. And though some Beatle band members said they were moved to make SPLCB out of inspirations from The Beach Boys and Ravi Shankarr, still, neither they nor anyone else produced a work that was as effective or as widely acclaimed.
Simply put, the Beatles deserve the number one spot on the greatest band of all time list because they saved rock n' roll: first from an early death, commercialism, and mediocrity and secondly by raising the standards of the musical form to heights previously unimagined. For all of us who enjoy, have been effected by, and value rock/pop, we should all be grateful to at least some degree.
Beatles or Stones?
Beatles
Last edited:
LMAO
Wow someone else gets it. Thanks.
PS I'm just curious if anyone actually read all of ruach's post.
Jesus
Demon in Disguise
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2004
- Messages
- 476
I did, because I'm a music geek.
By the way, the solo for Freebird, while speedy, is just a bunch of endless wanking if you ask me.
Only if musicianship means nothing. Credence was one of those bands that barely knew how to play their instruments.
billydkid
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2002
- Messages
- 4,917
Well in sense, that's part of the appeal of rock and roll. You might also know that John Lennon did not even know the names of the chords he was playing and his piano ability is on full display in Imagine. Paul is also musically pretty illiterate. In fact, none of the Beatles were particularly good musicians as are none of the Stones - but none of that is what rock and roll is about. In fact, I enjoy John Fogerty's guitar playing and it is not accurate to say he didn't know how to play it. I would certainly rather listen to his twangy guitar on Green River or Sweet Hitchhiker than I would Eddie Van Halen's guitar playing - and he is a master of the instrument. In any city you could find a hundred guys who are better guitar players or musicians than anyone in the Beatles or Stones, but none of them are the Beatles or the Stones.
But even within the realm of bad musicianship there are gradients.
The Beatles had a literate ingredient btw, namely George Martin who may have had more to do with what was special about the Beatles than the 4 Beatles.
True. It was the rest of the band that was sub clueless.
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
From a purely personal, completely subjective, "who I listen to more" perspective: Beatles. No contest.
His dad drove him crazy along with the gazillion drugs he did. As for the whole mythology of the Beatles/Beach Boys rivalry it was more a mutual and admiration.
Boo
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
George Martin was an indispensible part of the Beatle's success. The 'B' side of Yellow Submarine is great fun.
treble_head
Cupcake Loser Moron
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2005
- Messages
- 10,907
Yeah, well the Rolling Stones had such a man that helped them to their success. His name was Jack Daniels. An integral part of their success and longevity.
Last edited: