The Rolling Stones vs. Aerosmith

[Yamisonic]

Perry and richards are about equal and depends on which songs are chosen one is better than the other...... and tyler is a better singer than jagger...(even ODS can't argue much against this)

I can't, why not? You see, just because Tyler sings in a falsetto it doesn't make him better or anything, I would much rather listen to Jagger. There are plenty of guys who can sing in Tyler's style (ie. McCafferty, Rose, Plant...), who sounds like Mick?

Axl and Plant sound nothing like Tyler. Tyler has a great, great voice which on vocal quality alone is slightly better than Jagger's, look at Mama Kin (studio), it's brilliant, a very unique rasp unlike Rose's and great vocal control, perhaps one of the best recorded vocals in history, then you have songs like "Dream On", "Same Old Song and Dance" etc. which are fucking brilliant vocally. However, I would tend to agree with you that Jagger is an overall better vocalist (I know I'm contradicting myself), simply because of the unique expression in his voice, especially the sardonic leer he has in many songs.

That's ridiculous, there were 10-15 great songs on Exile On Main St. alone, the figure is probably closer to somewhere over 100.

Compare Forty Licks to Greatest Hits, 40 great songs vs. 15 great songs.

j00 got pwn3d

Only one band beats the Stones, and that is the Beatles. I will never get enough Brown Sugar!

No offense to Aerosmith, they have some kickass songs, but I just like the Stones better. Sweet Emotion rocks my socks, and so does Cryin'.

[Vincent Vega]

Hi

Being very bored, I read how in the early career of Aerosmith, up until 1975's Toys in the Attic, they were dismissed by the mainstream press as being rip-offs of the Rolling Stones. Both, in their own ways are very good bands, with their (early) street wise lyrics, great guitar riffs, and pouty lipped lead singers. And they both have released some very good albums:

Aerosmith Discography:

Aerosmith (1973), Get Your Wings (1974), Toys in the Attic (1975), Rocks (1976), Draw the Line (1977), Night in the Ruts (1979), Rock and a Hard Place (1982-without Joe Perry or Brad Whitford), Done with Mirrors (1985), Permanent Vacation (1987), Pump (1989), Get a Grip (1993), Nine Lives (1997), Just Push Play (1999), Honkin' on Bobo (2004)

Rolling Stones Discography:

Brian Jones Years (1962-1969):

England's Newest Hitmakers (1964), 12x5 (1964), The Rolling Stones Now! (1965), Out of Our Heads (1965), December's Children (1965), Aftermath (1966), Between the Buttons (1967), Flowers (1967), Their Satanic Majestie's Request (1967), Begger's Banquet (1968)

Mick Taylor Years (1969-1975):

Let it Bleed (1969), Sticky Fingers (1971), Exile on Main St. (1972), Goat's Head Soup (1973), It's Only Rock N' Roll (1974)

No Lead Guitarist (1975-1976):

Black and Blue (Harvey Mandel, Wayne Perkins and Ron Wood on Lead Guitars) (1976)

Ronnie Wood Years (1976-present):

Some Girls (1978), Emotional Rescue (1980), Tattoo You (1981), Undercover of the Night (1983), Dirty Work (1986), Steel Wheels (1989), Voodoo Lounge (1994), Bridges to Babylon (1997), A Bigger Bang (2005)

Edited December 2, 2006 by Mr. Miser

[adnan]

The Rolling Stones are greater, but Aerosmith is the greatest American rock band of all time, and possibly the second greatest rock band, after the Stones.

[The Sandman]

Aerosmith.

[Lithium]

Impossible to choose, null vote.

[worldwideboss]

The Stones are so much better, it's not even funny. As great as Aerosmith are, their work can't touch Sticky Fingers or Exile On Main St.

[JDRM]

the smith

[adnan]

For reference, I made a thread like this a while back:

http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showto...69732&st=45

[Vincent Vega]

The Stones...by far. How anyone can choose Aerosmith is beyond me. "Toys in the Attic" is an awesome album, but definately below the level of ''Exile on Main St'' or ''Let it Bleed''

[arnold layne]

It's got to be the Rolling Stones. No doubt about if for me.

[criticalsolution04]

The stones=

Aerosmith= rock1

[Mutant Rose]

I grew up on the Stones. I love the Stones and will always love the Stones, but best band after all is just an opinion and I love Aerosmith more. It isn't about how prolific they are.Yes the Stones are Rock Legends. Music Gods that still grace us with their presense and have a kick ass time doing it. But if you are going to say they are the better band because they started Bluesy Rock than I guess the reall honor of the best would go to Les Paul and the Pioneers or what ever the name of his old very country band was called, because after all Mr Paul invented the Electric guitar and where would Bluesy rock be with out that? But When all is said and done I listen to Aerosmith more. Their music touches me on a deeper level. For me it makes them the better band. It is Tyler. I enjoy watching Jagger sing, but the watching is half the fun. Tyler could look like a hunch back leaper and it wouldn't matter because IMO his voice is the best. The very best and not just between Aerosmith and the Stones, but the best period. The only thing that could have made Guns'N Roses better is if Tyler had been the front man. (Batten's down the hatches and prepares for war) And as for Perry he is amazing. The only Guitarist I like better is Slash and oh what I would give to see the two of them Tyler/Slash play Sweet Child o Mine.

[Chris Axl]

Aerosmith

[frankwhite]

oh for the love of God, another one?!?! first kiss n now aerosmith?!?! my reply is the same, i refuse to answer for the same reason that i refuse to try n teach my father how to fuck.

[CRAZY SERB]

null vote

they are both... ...let's say on the same level

[-Laura-]

Hard choice for me but I'll go with Stones.

[Double Talkin Jive']

The Rolling Stones

[pepsicoca]

The Stones. But I also like Aerosmith.

[krissirge]

Aerosmith

[worldwideboss]

The Stones by a landslide.

[rQueen]

I like Aerosmith but the Stones for me and I really don't feel like I should put that to rest... but I did anyway

[adnan]

oh for the love of God, another one?!?! first kiss n now aerosmith?!?! my reply is the same, i refuse to answer for the same reason that i refuse to try n teach my father how to fuck.

This is an old thread... Remember this:

woah, aerosmith fans, cool now we're even. goes towards more of like...the reality of life, opinion, we're almost half n half here, but im a predudiced punk on this story n i dunno, people who LIKE aerosmith need to also look into the corporate bidding war between Aerosmith n the New York Dolls n who were the hot "to sign" bands at the times n who got signed n who got better promoted n who didn't n who made it n the reasons behind it. go lookin' for Marty Thau maybe. but fuck it, can't really take nothin from the Stones OR Aerosmith, i was raised to hate the rolling stones.

?

[bass71player]

If you claim to have voted for Aerosmith I will attack you verbally.

we may have to throw down if you come to new paltz

this is an old ass thread (predates my membership), but i voted for aerosmith

i'm seeing aerosmith tonight (as i mentioned in my topic right below this one) for the 6th time. i've never seen the stones, because i've had no impulse to. aerosmith is still exciting and relevant, and i feel like the rolling stones are kinda stale.

lately i've discovered a new appreciation for the stones, but i still don't know if i would shell out the money to see them.

live is what does it for me.

edit: i've been on this board longer than i realized.

Edited December 3, 2006 by bass71player

[Guest Ohdistortedsmile1789]

Next time I like Hard Rock, I'll probably get into Aerosmith. Arguing with me at this point on it is a lost cause.

[GivenToFly]

this will never be put to rest