• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Beatles or Stones?

varwoche said:
Only if musicianship means nothing. Credence was one of those bands that barely knew how to play their instruments.
Click to expand...
Yer talking about rock n roll here. Of course musicianship means nothing.

The Beatles did cutting edge stuff for their time, while the Stones simply rocked. Also, more Stones are still alive and still making noisy poor musicianship.

Stones, hands down.

PS - Credence over Beatles too.
 
Boo said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, I know. Of course I was exaggerating, but I watched that documentary of the Beach Boys story a couple times and was highly intrigued by the later interviews with Brian Wilson. He recounted his reactions to hearing certain Beatles songs for the first time on the radio (one incident nearly caused him to wreck his car). There was respect and admiration, sure, but it was clear that what frustrated him to no end was how the Beatles could come up with good tunes and successful hits with seemingly very little effort, while he busted his @ss to write good songs. The interviews were very poignant because he was clearly not all there. Kind of sad, really.
 
fishbob said:
Yer talking about rock n roll here. Of course musicianship means nothing.
Click to expand...
I didn't get the memo. Where/when I was a kid, musicianship was highly valued.

The Beatles did cutting edge stuff for their time, while the Stones simply rocked. Also, more Stones are still alive and still making noisy poor musicianship. Stones, hands down. PS - Credence over Beatles too.
Click to expand...
I can't really muster up a debate because they all bore me to tears and beyond. I will submit myself to ridicule though by stating that Steely Dan is the greatest rock/pop band ever, by orders of magnitude.
 
varwoche said:
I didn't get the memo. Where/when I was a kid, musicianship was highly valued.
Click to expand...

It was interesting watching a British 'history of pop' documentary series. The downward spiral from talented to talentless was sad. The pop music of the 50's had very talented acts, who had to be able to perform live (shock, horror).

The narrator seemed to feel the arrival of the Sex Pistols was a *good thing*, as it turned pop away from the waffle of ELP, and back to the people. The Sex Pistols were the triumph of style over substance.

The search for 'guitar gods' was a common past time when I was younger. There is hardly anyone who aspires to talented musicianship in pop music these days. Instead we have the likes of Kylie Minogue, a total nothing interms of talent, who pays people to create an extravagana to hide the fact that she cannot sing or dance.

I can't really muster up a debate because they all bore me to tears and beyond. I will submit myself to ridicule though by stating that Steely Dan is the greatest rock/pop band ever, by orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

They employed excellent musicians, did some good work, but I found they also did their fair share of formulaic rubbish without the essential ingredient, to me, of good pop music, a catchy tune.
 
Beatles. Definately Beatles.

However, it was a little odd to see a few Stones albums in my parents collection, what with them being in their 60s & all...
(But, so are the Stones). :D
 
I'm with the Beatles. I listened and analyzed them with my stoned teen-aged buds growing up. I've read tons of books about them, and once I was able to chat with John Lennon on a prank call (phone number gotten by a phone phreak friend around 1978).

Still no one beats Dread Zepplin ....

Charlie (way down inside) Monoxide
 
You should hear the whining coming from people in & around Detroit about the next Super Bowl; since it's being played in detroit, a lot of people seem to think that the NFL should have gotten some Detroit talent for the half-time show: Aretha Franklin, Bob Seger, Eminem, or Ted Nugent.

Instead, the Stones got the job.
 
Temporal Renegade said:
You should hear the whining coming from people in & around Detroit about the next Super Bowl; since it's being played in detroit, a lot of people seem to think that the NFL should have gotten some Detroit talent for the half-time show: Aretha Franklin, Bob Seger, Eminem, or Ted Nugent.

Instead, the Stones got the job.
Click to expand...
That makes perfect sense:

Aretha has health problems
Seger wrote the most whiney song ever recorded
Eminem is ______________. Use your imagination.
Ted is a whacko.
And the Beatles are half dead.
 
Not a music expert, but I am opinionated, so:

Beatles are the greatest band due to impact and versatility.

Stones have the greatest songs. If you list the songs that ought to at least be considered for the greatest rock song ever, quite a few bands will have one candidate. The Stones have at least three, and probably the winner:

Satisfaction
Paint It Black
Angie

And I'm right.

Really.

Trust me on this.
 
varwoche said:
I didn't get the memo. Where/when I was a kid, musicianship was highly valued.

I can't really muster up a debate because they all bore me to tears and beyond. I will submit myself to ridicule though by stating that Steely Dan is the greatest rock/pop band ever, by orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Anyone who ridicules such a nomination are themselves worthy of ridicule and frankly their musical opinion can't be taken seriously by anyone who knows anything about music. It'd be like arguing with a 1st grader. And I disagree with you btw, but ridiculing that idea would be like someone ridiculing Joe Montana as the greatest QB of all time (which btw I don't agree with either - my point being he's a worthy candidate).

Anyway, the 'Dan were/are an amazingly talented "group" and probably the second most innovative group ever - behind the Beatles. I would also nominate them as 2d best rock group ever ie in terms of pure quality of their body of work. Impressive doesn't begin to describe it. So on the contrary, bravo for the reply.

The thing is they were very complex and profound..and on one hand that's a big part of their greatness, but the Beatles' work was not only so innovative and great, but they generally did it with the simplest of chords/musical structure/whatever. ie a purity of musical quality which no one matched. They weren't and didn't NEED to be oblique or coy or "mystical" in any way to be great. And while they occasionally used them to great effect, they didn't need huge supporting casts or elaborate/flashy solos to make their songs great either. And they sure as hell didn't need studio enhancements or "tricks" (not a ref. to Steely Dan btw but a reference of disgust for much of today's "music" ie form over substance and all the tricks needed to make no-talent fabricated nobodies sound at least marginally so) either.

They had so many truly great rock tunes - beautiful ballads - catchy yet highest of quality pop - innovations out the bazoo - musical styles and songs of all kinds. On and on and on. It's a no-brainer.

Again they don't come remotely close to my fav. band ever and I'm not even much for listening to them very often, but credit where credit is due. This is like debating what the highest mountain peak is. There really isn't much of an argument there IMO and I think most people saying otherwise are doing so out of a bias for "their" candidate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom