Rolling Stones or Beatles

Rolling Stobes or Beatles?

  • Rolling Stones

    Votes: 34 38.6%
  • Beatles

    Votes: 54 61.4%

  • Total voters
    88

fun-guy

Executive Senior Member
Jun 29, 2005
7,275
3
38
Comparing The Beatles to The Stones is like comparing The School of Fine Dining to McDonalds. You might enjoy the food at both, but one is a master of the craft in all respects, and the other is just a fucking burger.
But you can still feel satisfied either way.

btw, which one is Fine Dining and which one is McDonalds? lol

Funny analogy.
 

james t kirk

Well-known member
Aug 17, 2001
24,067
3,959
113
Thanks for that.

(Though I admit that she had a good voice.)

But I'd be more inclined to see a Shirly Bassey concert before I'd have seen Whitney.


She really neails it at about 2:10.

Whitney has nothing on Shirley
 

Ref

Committee Member
Oct 29, 2002
5,127
1,067
113
web.archive.org
However you cannot leave The Beach Boys out of the mix. Who knows what they may have evolved into if Brian Wilson wasn't consumed by depression.
Was never a fan of the Beach Boys. I equate them on the same level as The Monkees, Herman's Hermits and any other '60's teen pop sensation. But as JTK mentioned, the thread boils down to personal taste.
 

GPIDEAL

Prolific User
Jun 27, 2010
23,356
13
38
They're both damn good.
Agreed. Ditto what James T Kirk said too.

The 1st Stones album that my brother and I owned was Through The Past Darkly. It was after Brian Jones' death. It was an Octagon-shaped album cover. Legendary songs on that album were Ruby Tuesday and Paint It Black. There was one uber-psychadelic song which you could've listened to on acid.

However, when I saw the Stones at Downsview Park (SARS benefit concert), AC/DC were more entertaining.
 

jost

Active member
Jul 28, 2004
2,997
0
36
voted Stones but only for their old stuff...it is sad that they have been nothing but a nostalgia act for a very long time now
 

Smash

Active member
Apr 20, 2005
4,073
12
38
T Dot
(Though I admit that she had a good voice.)
But I'd be more inclined to see a Shirly Bassey concert before I'd have seen Whitney.
Whitney has nothing on Shirley
Although Shirley does have a nice voice. Whitney's was much more flexible and fine tuned imo. Whitney had a much more sweeter all around voice. At lo levels as well as belting it was (I'd say perfect). Whitney was also effortless as if she was hardly trying but still sounded perfect imo. What I liked and admired the most about her was the fact that at ANYTIME/ ANYPLACE she could sing and sound incredible. I watched most of her interviews and acceptance speeches and I was always blown away that she would belt out a verse on the spot and sound like a recording. You could always tell that she truly loved to sing becuz she would start singing at the drop of a hat and sound on tune.

I could listen to Whitney sing all day. It was just that pure and that sweet.
The best vocals of any female singer EVER.


PS: I'd take Led Zeppelin over the Stones and Beatles
 

ogibowt

Well-known member
Aug 3, 2008
6,348
2,944
113
Was never a fan of the Beach Boys. I equate them on the same level as The Monkees, Herman's Hermits and any other '60's teen pop sensation. But as JTK mentioned, the thread boils down to personal taste.
i disagree with what you said about the BB,s....however i agree with your last statement. as a teen i bought all their early albums and i quit after Aftermath, because they stopped being a cover band..lol...thats not a put down, because the Stones greatest talent was taking great songs and covering them with respect and honour, unlike the repulsive Led Zepplin who lifted riffs with impunity....btw, i never bought a Beatles album..had zero interest in their music..i guess i was one of the rare teens in the 60,s that felt that way..
 

Don Draper

Cufflinks & Cognac
Nov 24, 2009
6,364
644
113
voted Stones but only for their old stuff...it is sad that they have been nothing but a nostalgia act for a very long time now
Not at all. That well is deep, fresh and perpetual.

They have never toured without new material. It has always been in support of a new album/CD unlike all the other bands who need a quick $$$ grab so tour only to play 20 year old+ music. Halen? Police? Cheap parlour tricks with a shallow well that ran dry quickly.

From 'Steel Wheels' onwards, the Stones have a wealth of great material. 'Voodoo Lounge' is particularly outstanding. The music industry is not interested in promoting their music since they are considered 'Royalty' and Autonomous. Their fan base is so large that a CD will sell and a concert will sell out regardless of any commercial promotion.

If in doubt, check this out from 2005:


Bands half their tenure don't rock this hard. Forever Cool.
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,409
210
63
eastern frontier
Don, very good points about the Stones and their material, always touring with new material and not for the money like other bands. The Stones have put some good music out in the last 20 years, although not commercially successful stuff, good nonetheless. I would love to see the amount of material the Stones have that has gone unused for albums, unfinished songs as well. I would guess that vault to be deep.
 

userz

Member
Nov 5, 2005
758
0
16
The Stones strike me a band for the boys. The Beatles? It was all about the 14 year old girls.
 

jost

Active member
Jul 28, 2004
2,997
0
36

They have never toured without new material.
dirkd101 said:
always touring with new material and not for the money like other bands.
wrong..the 2002 tour was in support of a greatest hits album..think it was called 40 Licks..cash grab

dirkd101 said:
The Stones have put some good music out in the last 20 years
they put out one new studio album in the last 15 years

don't get me wrong guys, love the Stones, but the fans are filling up stadiums to hear their 60s/70s stuff..clearly a nostalgia act for the last 30 years

as for their current live act, what is up with all the back-up singers and musicians..saw them in 2005 and felt like I was watching a Broadway musical or something..they need to get back to the basic 5-piece unit and be a rock band again
 

dirkd101

Well-known member
Sep 29, 2005
10,409
210
63
eastern frontier
Forty Licks was put out to celebrate 40 years and did have 4 previously unreleased tracks on it.

As for the stage show, all older acts need a compliment of back up singers to hit the notes that they can't anymore and to cover the sections that the used to be covered by the band members. The horn sections are a big part of many songs.

You are correct, alot of the show is about their old material, but then again, with such an impressive cache of material that still rocks, why not play it?
 

WoodPeckr

Protuberant Member
May 29, 2002
46,940
5,742
113
North America
thewoodpecker.net
Beatles FTW!!!

Beatles tunes are covered by far more musicians and groups than tunes of the Stones.

Here's a nice Spanish Flamenco version of a Beatles hit being played right now on Pandora....

 

Twister

Well-known member
Aug 24, 2002
4,696
441
83
GTA
I voted Beatles but the Stones have many legendary songs...they should retire...at the Sars concert I thought Acdc were way better

Here is a wonderful cover also of my guitar gently weeps done with ukalele

 

bobistheowl

New member
Jul 12, 2003
4,403
3
0
Toronto
Here is Rolling With The Stones, broadcast on BBC Radio 6 on July 12:

http://www.4shared.com/mp3/T8YVMp2H/RWtS.html

Listen online, or download, (.mp3; approx 96 MB, 1 hour).

Programme Information: (from thebox.bz torrent tracker)

On the 50th anniversary of their live debut at London's Marquee Club (12 July 1962), Jerry Hall examines how The Rolling Stones earned their reputation as one of the world's greatest rock 'n' roll bands.

Playing live has been the fuel that has driven The Rolling Stones for 50 years, as they progressed from small London clubs to the world's largest arenas, with "the road" their home away from home. For their fist gig they were paid £20 - for their last tour they were paid £323 million!

This programme features interviews with people who have been fortunate enough to live and work with The Rolling Stones while on tour, including Harold Pendleton, founder of The Marquee; Marshall Chess, President of Rolling Stones records; Sam Cutler, tour manager in the 60s and 70s; Albert Maysles director of Gimme Shelter; photographer Ethan Russell; Georgia Bergman, the Stones PA from 67- 72; Ron Schneider, The Stones Business Manager; authors Stanley Booth, Robert Greenfield and Michael Lydon.

We also hear from promoter John Giddings, who brought the Rolling Stones back to the Isle of Wight in 2007. He reveals the logistics of taking a massive tour on the road, as 130 stage crew get 400 tonnes of gear stacked in to 120 lorries and 12 tour buses from one city to the next.
 

frankcastle

Well-known member
Feb 4, 2003
17,879
242
63
Noticed two people mentioned the stones acdc concert and I have to agree ACDC was better that night.

And you could sense it in the crowd.

But showmanship is a whole other category.
 

FatOne

Banned
Nov 20, 2006
3,474
1
0

Paul McCartney sure didn't like Yoko Ono, the rest of the band, or the Jews.
 

FatOne

Banned
Nov 20, 2006
3,474
1
0
Toronto Escorts