frostbitmic Posted September 12, 2015 Posted September 12, 2015 I like both but if someone were to ask if I'd rather hear some Beatles or Rolling Stones right now I'd go with the Stones.
Helpmenow Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 i like the Beatles,but my god, when it comes to rock and roll, the Stones are it. i care not to read through this thread since a "majority" are absolutely wrong. and i mean that sincerely. Maybe in their earlier catalog. Not overall
Chandler#81 Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Stones were never great musicians, though. McCartney and Harrison were masters of their crafts. I consider both of them to be seriously underrated bassists/guitarists, respectively, and thoroughly listening to their music would lead any musician to agree, in my opinion. Not knocking the Stones at all. As I stated in an earlier post, I believe they defined Rock-n-Roll. But I truly believe that the Beatles were exponentially superior musicians. Just read this whole thread and this is the best post, IMO. I play guitar and am proficient in most -if not all- of the Stones & Beatles catalogs. Beatles are clearly better musicians, having routinely created chords/chord soundings in their compositions to go with 3 & 4 part singing harmonies. Stones are basic 12 bar blues and with so many written in open chord tunings (G & E), make slides, minimal fingering so easy to replicate. Its how they can still perform at such a high level well into their 70's. Keef craftily plucks just a few riffs which Wyman takes his beat cue from, while Ronnie fills in with riffs in standard tuning. Not much effort. Easy to replicate, but still sounds fantastic. Final analysis; depends what you're feeling at the moment. Stones are great, raw R&R. Beatles can be too but are also much more musical. My Vote, Tie.
Helpmenow Posted January 5, 2016 Posted January 5, 2016 Charlie Watts not a great musician please. Or Mick Taylor
Maury Ballstein Posted January 6, 2016 Posted January 6, 2016 Most of my friends argue with me Led Zep vs The Beatles. The Stones don't even come up. This. Zep>Beatles Stones Meh
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 6, 2016 Author Posted January 6, 2016 Just read this whole thread and this is the best post, IMO. I play guitar and am proficient in most -if not all- of the Stones & Beatles catalogs. Beatles are clearly better musicians, having routinely created chords/chord soundings in their compositions to go with 3 & 4 part singing harmonies. Stones are basic 12 bar blues and with so many written in open chord tunings (G & E), make slides, minimal fingering so easy to replicate. Its how they can still perform at such a high level well into their 70's. Keef craftily plucks just a few riffs which Wyman takes his beat cue from, while Ronnie fills in with riffs in standard tuning. Not much effort. Easy to replicate, but still sounds fantastic. Final analysis; depends what you're feeling at the moment. Stones are great, raw R&R. Beatles can be too but are also much more musical. My Vote, Tie. I read Keef's autobiography, and he said he recently (relatively speaking, meaning long after the Beatles were done) got into the same discussion with Paul McCartney. They concluded the Stones were better if were into hearing cool instrumentals and simple rock and roll, and the Beatles were more "refined" and clearly much better vocalists.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Been listening to the Beatles a lot lately since they made it available for streaming. Although I'm never "blown away" by any solos or anything, I've gained a new appreciation for their composing and vocal harmony skill. It's hard to look at it from a historical perspective, being that it's before my, and a lot of our, time. Because I've heard everything that came out after the Beatles, that was influenced by them, and not realizing that this is where it wall came from.
Chandler#81 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Lennon is perhaps the most under rated rhythm guitarist in Rock history. imo.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 12, 2016 Author Posted January 12, 2016 Lennon is perhaps the most under rated rhythm guitarist in Rock history. imo. Hmmm, I honestly don't think I've ever heard someone say that before. Which songs would you say showcase that the most?
Chandler#81 Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 A couple early ones are All my Loving and Im Happy just to dance with You. No one played like that prior. As they got more into rock, he perfected his rhythm Blues skills.
Chef Jim Posted January 12, 2016 Posted January 12, 2016 Been listening to the Beatles a lot lately since they made it available for streaming. Although I'm never "blown away" by any solos or anything, I've gained a new appreciation for their composing and vocal harmony skill. It's hard to look at it from a historical perspective, being that it's before my, and a lot of our, time. Because I've heard everything that came out after the Beatles, that was influenced by them, and not realizing that this is where it wall came from. I don't really get all that excited about their harmonizing. Singers have been doing that for centuries. They were however major trend setters when it comes to music production and recording and I give most if not all of that credit to George Martin.
Azalin Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 I don't really get all that excited about their harmonizing. Singers have been doing that for centuries. They were however major trend setters when it comes to music production and recording and I give most if not all of that credit to George Martin. Their harmonizing is one of the strong points of their entire catalog, in my opinion. They used to use all kinds of different harmonic intervals instead of just one or two (as opposed to CSNY's one vocal harmony or Iron Maiden's one guitar harmony), and all four of them could sing. I do agree that George Martin probably had a lot to do with that, and I include him along with the band in lauding their use of harmonies.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted January 13, 2016 Author Posted January 13, 2016 How big of an influence do you think Martin had on it? Obviously huge, but do you think he could have taken, say Herman's Hermits, Gerry and the Pacemakers, or any of the other British Invasion bands and turned them into what the Beatles became?
Cugalabanza Posted January 13, 2016 Posted January 13, 2016 Not to be a Gilligan, but both sides have excellent points. They are both just awesome bands. I love the Beatles and Stones pretty much equally. I still am in awe of the incredible output of great songs from both bands. I played my Rubber Soul record the other day and my 4 year old daughter, said "Daddy, I love this music." She likes the Stones too. Tattoo You is a big hit. She dances like crazy to it with her best friend. I think The Kinks deserve an honerable mention too. Their catalogue is pretty outstanding.
Recommended Posts