The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 I said Brian Johnson??? #@&%#!!!!! For the record, the Beatles were indeed very raw and focused very heavily on old-fashioned rock & roll, but that was back in their club days. They had adopted a blend of the old R&R mixed with folk when they began focusing on their own material. I can just imagine Brian Johnson of AC/DC playing guitar and backing vocals in the Stones. Oh definitely. John's love and respect for Chuck Berry, and Paul's love for Little Richard is apparent, even in some of their later works. The Stones kept it simple. I actually hated the stones growing up. Because they weren't very intricate. Now I love them for the same reason. Just simple fun rock, blues and country. They're basically an American band that happens to be from England. And for what it's worth, Keith's favorite non Stones album is Powerage.
Rico Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 (edited) ^^^ I'd say both Piper and WYWH are also better than DSOTM. Edited March 9, 2015 by Rico
Rico Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 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. Maybe as a whole, though I wouldn't agree. Mick Taylor in his prime was a far more talented musician than anyone in the Beatles. And Charlie Watts crushes Ringo.
RevWarRifleman Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Stones over Beatles, they were more blues-based. That's where rock & roll came from.
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 10, 2015 Author Posted March 10, 2015 ^^^ I'd say both Piper and WYWH are also better than DSOTM. DSOTM is one of those albums that are meant to be heard in it's entirety. There are only one or two songs that stand out as good on their own.
Buftex Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 This showed on my Facebook que today...staying on topic! https://medium.com/cuepoint/the-beatles-or-the-stones-which-side-are-you-on-533c71da0019
bbb Posted March 12, 2015 Posted March 12, 2015 I must have misunderstood. Yup. So anyone who has a dream of world peace is a hippie? Yes. So Hippies were Communist? I'm confused. Yes. You really get confused a lot.
Gugny Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Yup. Yes. Yes. You really get confused a lot. I long for world peace. Am I a hippie?
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 I long for world peace. Am I a hippie? Do you smell like Otto's jacket?
Gugny Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Do you smell like Otto's jacket? Full disclosure - I had no idea what this meant. Upon googling it, I found a band in the town in which I work that goes by the name, "Otto's Jacket."
Chef Jim Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Full disclosure - I had no idea what this meant. Upon googling it, I found a band in the town in which I work that goes by the name, "Otto's Jacket." It's a Simpons reference. When Homer took Bart and Lisa to Lallapalooza Lisa said it smelles like Otto the stoner bus driver's jacket there. Classic. Edited March 13, 2015 by Chef Jim
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 13, 2015 Author Posted March 13, 2015 I did karaoke last night. Spot on Jagger impression as usual. I mean, a fat, uncoordinated Mick Jagger, but still, Jagger.
stevestojan Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 (edited) Is calling the Beatles an overrated Boy Band sacrilegious? Edited March 13, 2015 by stevestojan
Gugny Posted March 13, 2015 Posted March 13, 2015 Is calling the Beatles an overrated Boy Band sacrilegious? nope.
Prickly Pete Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) It's all here... https://books.google.com/books?id=O8w1cyT65ZIC&pg=PT395&lpg=PT395&dq=songwriting+devices+modulation&source=bl&ots=TVQ4fxHf5f&sig=SJnAF9l3Ihjx9Ox2dALgAko9R_I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V5rrVMnMPNayyATz0IDgBA&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q&f=false Silly boy band, revolutionizing popular songwriting, what a bunch of clowns...they can't touch Al DiMeola or Yngie Marmsteen. Faster fingers, more better.They shoulda practiced their scales more. Or sang about serious things, like working on the assembly line, like Bob Seger. Then they mighta been good. And Ringo...gee just think how much better they coulda been with say, Neil Peart back there? Someone with some "feel", and 45 drums to hit (and determined to hit them all, every song!). You know, a "real" musician. And never mind all the accomplished musicians (many of whom people here think surpassed The Beatles) who were openly in awe of their talent....yep just an overrated boy band. Edited March 15, 2015 by HoF Watkins
Bad Things Posted March 15, 2015 Posted March 15, 2015 I'm a fan of the Stones, but without the Beatles, the Stones wouldn't be the Stones.
Delete This Account Posted March 16, 2015 Posted March 16, 2015 (edited) says the guy who spent $40 to park to see Garth Brooks ok, two things. no, i didn't pay $40 for parking. i actually parked for free. two, my wife is a very big fan. and she had one helluva a hoot of a time enjoying her christmas present from me. jw It means that while the Rolling Stones have a some great songs, the Beatles have collection of great albums all plastered with great songs on them which makes them significantly better in my mind. Nah, the majority of us just read the title and answered the poll. It doesn't say which band rocks harder or is more rock and roll, it just says "Beatles vs Stones" and "Which is the better band?" ummmm, i did the same thing, and it was a no-brainer. and, i hate to say it, it is about which bands rocks harder or is more rock and roll. both are rock and roll bands. but, let's use your extremely narrow and limited basis for judgement here, because you seem to be caught up in this which is the best band. it's the stones. charlie watts vs. ringo: hands down. keith richards vs. anyone: hands down. the glimmer twins vs. john and paul: slight edge beatles. the Beatles are very good, but there is no argument here by any real and comparable measure, except for maybe album sales, which really is no measure at all. popularity does not trump greatness. if that were the case then fleetwood mac would be the best band in the world based on "Rumors" sales (and yes, i'm using aged numbers, but i don't care to look up whether coldplay or some inspid crap band has cashed out since). and as much as i like fleetwood mac, that's simply not the case. and you make this case that The Beatles have "better" albums while somehow failing to taking into account that the Stones actually have recorded. as if Let It Bleed, Exile on Main Street, Sticky Fingers and Some Girls somehow don't exist. i ask, and i do this sincerely, have you listened to a Stones album that was released before 1981? my gawd. jw To think I missed you, and I mean that sincerely. bah! Better poll would be: Beatles vs Doors hands down, the Beatles. please, the doors are dated. very little of their music resonates today. jw Most of my friends argue with me Led Zep vs The Beatles. The Stones don't even come up. you need more informed friends. jw I think Pink Floyd should have been included in the poll. And I still couldn't answer who is better even with Pink Floyd tossed in there. there's always one of you in this bunch. fart. fart. fart. pink floyd. please. jw The Who in their prime were a better Rock and Roll band than the Stones. No one is "absolutely" wrong as taste in art is universally subjective. please, that "everyone gets a medal" crap doesn't wash with me. by your account, nickleback should be considered. coldplay, too. it's not universally subjective. if that were so, every artist that was working the same time The Mona Lisa was painted would also be remembered. strangely, that's not the case. jw There's no Beatles song better than these or B word, Rocks Off, and at least 20 others. thanks. jw I hate starting new threads so I thought I'd stick this thought in here. Between the Beatles and the Stones do either have an album that can top Dark side of the moon? the Stones have 4. please. and i was being conservative by my count. hell, the Replacements have 8 better than them. jw 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. you're kidding me. the stones were far more rooted and indebted to the true dirty blues than the Beatles ever were. give me a Keith Richards' hook long before a clean Beatles "ditty." jw i think i'm caught up now. jw oh, is it too late to say: "with all due respect?" shrug. Edited March 16, 2015 by john wawrow
Fan in San Diego Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Having a bad day jw? You pretty much slapped everybody in your post. So who is your favourite group? Everybody has an opinion thats why we have the off the wall discussions.
Recommended Posts