MEXzilla Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Guns n Roses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DR DOOM Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 It's unfair to pit them against each other.I find the Stones more consistent but when the Beatles came out with something like Dear Prudence or You Never Give Me Your Money they really were something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Prefer the Stones and think their albums have aged better. I dig The Beatles, but they have too many corny novelty songs like Maxwells Silver Hammer, Octopus's Garden, Obli-Di Obli-Da, With A Little Help From My Friends, Yellow Submarine... just all sounds a bit twee these days. You do have a point. And the problem with this is, every Beatles album has one. They could not put one album out without one Ringo number or some novalty Paul rubbish. Rubber Soul is the closest because the Ringo song is not that bad really, What Goes On. Abbey Rd has two of them: two of the cunts, Mal Evans with his hammer there! And you are forced to skip these tracks every time you listen, Octopus's bloody garden. I think The Beatles are so far superior to The Stones that The Stones would have to stand on their mothers shoulders just to kiss The Beatleses arse. Brown Sugar by itself is better than the first four Beatles albums put together. John Lennon was more rock and roll than all the members of the stones put together. I like the stones and all, but The Beatles were better musicans and songwriters. No. And no. John Lennon is quite possibly the most overrated songwriter of all time. Almost as much as Springsteen. But he's a sacred cow. Don't dare question the Beatles or Lennon. Fuck that. They're pop pansies with boring songs. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE lyrics. Fuck The Beatles. I cannot agree with that. 'I'm A Loser', 'Julia', 'Mother' - I have never seen a man lay his sincerity on the line quite like John Lennon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Beatles, easily. The Stones had more than a few of their moments, but they can't touch the Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixes Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 sincere maybe, but still terrible lyrics. neil diamond/bernie taupin-esque..you think they're saying something but they're not...and mccartney's lyrics are somehow worse...third grade faux poetrythe beatles are the monkees but they actually can play their instrumentsit's also my gauge in lifeif you like the beatles, i will not be friends with youif you like pink floyd, i wish a pox upon your family! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I do not think you have seriously listened to John Lennon's lyrics to be quite honest. Granted I prefer Beggars Banquet to Sgt Pepper but Lennon could write some amazingly heartfelt lyrics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classicrawker Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Stones are my favorite band but do like the Beatles........and Pink Floyd.......... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakey Styley Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I'm not really impressed when listening to the Stones like I am when listening to The Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixes Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I do not think you have seriously listened to John Lennon's lyrics to be quite honest. Granted I prefer Beggars Banquet to Sgt Pepper but Lennon could write some amazingly heartfelt lyrics.I have. I own every Beatles album and Lennon album and Yoko Ono album for that matter.If I had to list "best lyricists"... and I do love lists..Lennon wouldn't sniff the top 100. McCartney wouldn't even be a thought to make the list, he's just that bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieselDaisy Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Well you sir are now just saying things for cause and effect. You know that is bollocks yourself. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixes Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Well you sir are now just saying things for cause and effect. You know that is bollocks yourself.no i'm notif my opinion is lennon sucks, then lennon sucks... in my opinionyou listen to him..i won't...why? because i think he suckssame as the beatles...fuck them..they suck...i don't care how many times i've been told different or how many lists i've seen with them number 1 or how many long winded essays i've been presented, my ears tell me they suck..so..they suckand mccartney is just the drizzling shits...he may be the worst celebrated lyricist of all time..he's a hack... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 the stones, never really liked the beatles all that much. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetness Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I think the main thing that could be taken away from this thread is that not all music fans worship the fucking Beatles, and thats okay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) It doesn't bother me that people don't like The Beatles, but it's not necessary to trash them. I just don't understand how you can't respect their accomplishments? If you don't think they are "The Greatest Band Ever", thats ok. But we should all agree that they are "one of the greatest bands ever". Edited January 23, 2014 by Mike420 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LightningBolt Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 I love the Stones but I don't think they're even close to the Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 The Beatles are untouchable. Strangely, I think they're kinda underrated these days. Beatles songs are sort of in our blood. I'm half convinced I was born knowing certain Beatles songs. They're that important. And they were that great. You can't fuck with them. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixes Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 It doesn't bother me that people don't like The Beatles, but it's not necessary to trash them. I just don't understand how you can't respect their accomplishments? If you don't think they are "The Greatest Band Ever", thats ok. But we should all agree that they are "one of the greatest bands ever".If you're referencing me...I respect their accomplishments, of course.Just like U2, Pink Floyd and other bands that I don't like and yes, think "suck".But I don't like them. Big difference. I don't have to agree they are one of the greatest bands ever. Because to me, they're not. They are not the be all, end all.I respect their place in history and their undeniable influence and their importance.Greatest band ever? Not by a mile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) I just cannot fathom how and on what level The Stones are better than The Beatles. As songwriters? Gimme a fuckin' break. As a cultural phenomenon? Fuck no. As musicians? Not really, Mick Taylor I suppose, as an individual musician, yes, I could entertain that notion...but does that necessarily elevate The Stones above The Beatles on any level? Not really. And these so-called 'novelty songs', it's called talent, it's called expanding the pallette of rock n roll. The Stones found something they were good at (blues/americana mimicry) and stuck to it and everytime they tried to venture outside of that shit, it was embarassing. They were copyist purists. The Beatles however could knock you out a folk track, a blues track, a rock n roll track, a ballad, all of that shit...and on top of that they ventured out into other avenues and came up with music hall songs and strange psychedelic anthems and all sorts. The Beatles did Americana with a view to be taken seriously as musicians with it, The Beatles were never that corny, The Beatles were never gonna take this thing and attach themselves to it and attempt to become assimilated in it, in the blues tracks they did (Yer Blues) and folk tracks (Rocky Raccoon) and even music hall stuff like Your Mother Should Know etc, there was a vein of humour to it. They were perfectly formed songs and great representations and takes on those genres but they were never seriously trying to position themselves as the missing link to those genres or even particularly ingratiate themselves. Probably a little less humour in Yer Blues mind (although Yer Blues, as an English expression, a pisstake of the notion of English boys on blues). But just the song on it's own, is more powerful than anything The Stones ever did in their blues impersonations. First of all to listen to it's more original, its a blues song but it's not John Lennon trying to sound like an old American black person. And the lyrics, my God, he just took the blues themes right to the nth degree and broke it down to the purest starkest emotional honesty, how bluesier than that can you get, 'yes i'm lonely, wanna die', it's like woah John. Its almost dischordant, the way it sounds. That, to me, is how you do a take on something, you make it your own, The Stones are charming and everything but they could never really take their mimicry anywhere except in trying to make better and better blues songs...which is good for what it is but it doesn't compare with the sort of thing The Beatles were doing.And as a live band, fuck me, are some of you actually Stones fans, you're gonna cite them as a better live band that the Beatles, gimme a fuckin' break, come on, there's gotta be some musicians on here right, The Stones were faaaar far far from note perfect live performers...by a long chalk. Put simply, everything The Beatles did they did it better than The Stones....consistently. The Beatles could write a song to burn your heart out, The Stones wrote a song and, although there are many many great Stones songs, at the same time many of them are just like...piecemeal tapestries of hackneyed old imagery that goes nowhere and says nothing but just sound cool. A 6 gun, a caddlilac, country radio playing, a card game, whiskey and some puerto rican girls and ahhhhh gimme a break, it's just tired.Like Brown Sugar, it's just boring sexual imagery and stereotypes regarding black people put together in a way thats meant to make the song sound dirty and sexy but it's just transparent from a great distance. Mick Jagger knows what I mean, his massive identity dilemmas of the late 70s early 80s are testament to that. The Beatles did what they did with a skill, style and flair and wit that puts them in category above and beyond The Stones. Lets face it, they always have been, musically as well as their position in history.I think the main thing that could be taken away from this thread is that not all music fans worship the fucking Beatles, and thats okay. And you needed this thread to tell you that? It's been fashionable to dislike The Beatles since their heyday. And thats outside of anyone who might just dislike em cuz they just ain't their thing. Edited January 23, 2014 by sugaraylen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Sweaty rock fans discrediting the Beatles is the funniest thing. It's like people who think "The Warriors" and "The Goonies" are better movies than "The Godfather". 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Or take another song like Midnight Rambler, which is a classic...and musically i love it...but really, the wow factor is like 'wow, look at how those guys wrote an ALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLmost authentic sounding blues song', otherwise lyrically, again, it's pretty boring, exploring the link between serial killers and sex and this sensual idea of the midnight ramblers softly creeping while you lay asleep, your womenfolk vulnerable to his whims, ooooooh 'i'll stick my knife right down your throat baby and it hurts!', well done Mick, very subtle, I bet it took you AAAAGES to think that one up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 Beatles are better but I listen to the Stones more, it's more fun and better drinking music. I don't think Beatles could have competed with the Stones in the 90s as a touring band, they didn't have that banal element. Same The Doors, Jim couldn't drink like that and work a runway like Mick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron MikeyJ Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) It doesn't bother me that people don't like The Beatles, but it's not necessary to trash them. I just don't understand how you can't respect their accomplishments? If you don't think they are "The Greatest Band Ever", thats ok. But we should all agree that they are "one of the greatest bands ever". If you're referencing me...I respect their accomplishments, of course.Just like U2, Pink Floyd and other bands that I don't like and yes, think "suck".But I don't like them. Big difference. I don't have to agree they are one of the greatest bands ever. Because to me, they're not. They are not the be all, end all.I respect their place in history and their undeniable influence and their importance.Greatest band ever? Not by a mile.I respect your opinion to like or dislike whomever you choose. Also I know you are not a "hipster" that likes to dislike popular things just to be "cool". I guess my question for you is, in your opinion who are the 5 or 10 greatest bands ever? Because clearly Pink Floyd and The Beatles won't make you list, (which is criminal imo) but to each their own. Edited January 23, 2014 by Mike420 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Len B'stard Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) I think was axl666axl666 is saying is (if i may speak for him for a second, correct me if i'm wrong sir) that they ain't the greatest band of all time or one of the greatest cuz he simply doesn't like their songs. Position and place in history counts for a lot, and he has doffed his cap to them in that regard but how can you reckon a band as among the greatest of all time if you simply don't like them? Thats fair enough to me, Beatles fan though I am. The historical importance and what they done for music etc stuff only really counts in your reckoning of their place on your personal idea of 'the greatest band of all time' list if you actually like em. Edited January 23, 2014 by sugaraylen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixes Posted January 23, 2014 Share Posted January 23, 2014 (edited) It doesn't bother me that people don't like The Beatles, but it's not necessary to trash them. I just don't understand how you can't respect their accomplishments? If you don't think they are "The Greatest Band Ever", thats ok. But we should all agree that they are "one of the greatest bands ever". If you're referencing me...I respect their accomplishments, of course.Just like U2, Pink Floyd and other bands that I don't like and yes, think "suck".But I don't like them. Big difference. I don't have to agree they are one of the greatest bands ever. Because to me, they're not. They are not the be all, end all.I respect their place in history and their undeniable influence and their importance.Greatest band ever? Not by a mile.I respect your opinion to like or dislike whomever you choose. Also I know you are not a "hipster" that likes to dislike popular things just to be "cool". I guess my question for you is, in your opinion who are the 5 or 10 greatest bands ever? Because clearly Pink Floyd and The Beatles won't make you list, (which is criminal imo) but to each their own.chuck berry, bob dylan, the clash, the rolling stones, jimi hendrixprince, elvis presley, led zeppelin, the beatles, ramonesthat would be my top 10, not necessarily that order...and mind you, those aren't my favorites...that's a whole different list altogetherpink floyd would be in the top 50 i supposethere's loads of bands that i don't like but i have to brush aside bias..i'm not going to possibly say that the beatles or floyd or u2(another band i despise) don't have a major place in music/rock history...i'm not the biggest who fan either but they'd be top 20/25 easyU2 is top 20 probably....i'd have to flesh out a top 100(which i've done before) and see where the chips fall...my fav band at the moment are nick cave and the bad seeds and have been for a good 15 years...by no means would i suggest they belong in the top 10...hell they don't belong in the top 100...but to me, they are "better" than U2 or Floyd...and believe me, I've tried to enjoy them ..I own everything by Floyd, U2, etc etc and have listened to it all...I have to, I'm just a tad bit obsessive but they're not my cup of tea...i could make a list of bands i don't like that would probably be someone else's best of....beatles, U2, floyd, the eagles, allman brothers, george thorogood, stevie ray vaughan, journey, styx, foreigner, queen (yes, queen)...that's a bit of a ramble and all over the place...forgive me, I just woke up I think was axl666axl666 is saying is (if i may speak for him for a second, correct me if i'm wrong sir) that they ain't the greatest band of all time or one of the greatest cuz he simply doesn't like their songs. Position and place in history counts for a lot, and he has doffed his cap to them in that regard but how can you reckon a band as among the greatest of all time if you simply don't like them? Thats fair enough to me, Beatles fan though I am. The historical importance and what they done for music etc stuff only really counts in your reckoning of their place on your personal idea of 'the greatest band of all time' list if you actually like em.that's the general gist of it...certainly there are some beatles songs i like...for some reason, i like octopus's garden!i do like the ballad of john and yoko, don't let me down, dear prudenceand let it be will always open up the tear ducts when i'm good and drunk and thinking about my deceased parents...and again, don't misunderstand...i know the beatles place in history and am not denying or arguing itthat's an impossible task...but i've never seen them as the best and most likely, never will...but hey, that could changeand back to the Stones...my lord, they are a terrible live band Edited January 23, 2014 by axl666axl666 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.