BeatleLinks LogoNav Panel New Sites Cool Sites Top Rated Fab Forum Add A Site Link To Us Revolution Radio New Products



Go Back   BeatleLinks Fab Forum > Beatles Forums > I Read The News Today


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Dec 21, 2009, 06:53 AM   #41
Ketman
Apple Scruff
 
Ketman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 16, 2009
Posts: 162
Default

I think the Stones were a great live band, probably better than the Beatles. They put on a real show, no doubt about it. I went to the free concert in Hyde Park in 1969, and I can testify to that. But in the end, it's the recorded legacy that counts. Songs like "Satisfaction" "Get off My Cloud', "Ruby Tuesday", etc, are great - so long as it's the Stones doing it. Their songs don't have that stand-alone quality of the Beatles' material. How many covers can you name of Stones songs? There must be some, but offhand I can't think of any. By contrast, the Beatles wrote the most covered songs of all time. A covers band has to be pretty incompetent not to sound good playing "Penny Lane" or "Norwegian Wood" or "Day Tripper", because of the sheer musical craft that went into their composition. Stones material is much more fragile. To sound good singing it, you have to be the Stones.
Ketman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 21, 2009, 07:13 AM   #42
834
Dr. Robert
 
834's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 24, 2006
Location: Nutopia, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,476

Default

Apples and Chainsaws. The Beatles are my uber favorite above anyone else but I do love the Stones. I think "Monkey Man" may be the greatest rock and roll song of all time and "Let It Bleed" is a masterpiece. I paid a small fortune a few years ago for a hand-signed photo of Keef because I believe he is God. But Fabs is Fabs.
__________________
Trying to shovel smoke with a pitchfork in the wind
834 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 25, 2009, 10:31 PM   #43
Get Back
Wild Honey Pie
 
Get Back's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 625

Default

Interesting to observe the difference in how both groups evolved through their early years.

The Stones coming from well educated, conservative London backgrounds (Jagger even had an economics qualification) , to turn into the wild rebellious boys with no regard for authority.

And The Beatles who came from comparatively less educated backgrounds, rough provincial Liverpool origins with even rougher Hamburg experiences, to turn into the nice cute and cuddly idols that even grandparents took to heart.

Such is the power of managers, and to some extent, the media.
__________________
"Those of you in the cheaper seats, clap your hands.
And the rest of you, just rattle your jewelry."
Get Back is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 30, 2010, 02:02 PM   #44
letmerollit
Apple Scruff
 
letmerollit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ketman View Post
I think the Stones were a great live band, probably better than the Beatles. They put on a real show, no doubt about it. I went to the free concert in Hyde Park in 1969, and I can testify to that. But in the end, it's the recorded legacy that counts. Songs like "Satisfaction" "Get off My Cloud', "Ruby Tuesday", etc, are great - so long as it's the Stones doing it. Their songs don't have that stand-alone quality of the Beatles' material. How many covers can you name of Stones songs? There must be some, but offhand I can't think of any. By contrast, the Beatles wrote the most covered songs of all time. A covers band has to be pretty incompetent not to sound good playing "Penny Lane" or "Norwegian Wood" or "Day Tripper", because of the sheer musical craft that went into their composition. Stones material is much more fragile. To sound good singing it, you have to be the Stones.




When The Beatles were playing live in 63,64, 65& 66 they had very limited primitive sound systems at the time,only 100 watt amplifiers,(and George Harrison says in the excellent video series,The Beatles Anthology that special 100 watt amplifiers were made for their August 1965 Shea Stadium concerts,and he said they went up from the only 30 watts before!) no feedback monitors so they couldn't even hear themselves play and sing(yet they amazingly managed to sing and play in sync and in tune with each other anyway!) plus all of the screaming from the crowds.



In their January 1969 live rooftop concert they sounded great, the sound systems had improved some by then ,although still pretty primitive compared to today's, and there were no screaming crowds anymore.


When I was a teenager I met 3 people who saw The Beatles in concert, 2 saw them in 1966 and 1 saw them in 1964, they all told me they could see and hear them and that they were great.



On the site Artist Facts in The Rolling Stones section a guy from Canada said he saw The Beatles in concert in 1966 and The Rolling Stones in 1996(and the sound systems by then were a million tines better!) and he said they both were great but he said The Beatles were The *GREATEST* Band ever.



And former Kiss guitarist Bob Kulick who produced the heavy metal tribute Beatles album,Butchering The Beatles, said he saw The Beatles at Shea Stadium in 1966 and he said he only heard them in bits and pieces but he could hear parts of Baby's In Black and Paperback Writer and he said they sounded amazing. He also calls them the *GREATEST* band ever.



And also in the excellent Beatles Anthology video series , they show The Rolling Stones playing live The Beatles I Wanna Be Your Man,and then they showed The Beatles playing it( although not live it was from their recording although other live Beatles performances from around this same time,they sounded better than The Rolling Stones sounded here,they were playing longer at this pointThe Rolling Stones had only been playing together for about a year or so),The Rolling Stones on these limited sound systems didn't sound too good.
letmerollit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2010, 03:26 PM   #45
JudithKristen
Wild Honey Pie
 
JudithKristen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 14, 2010
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 636
Default

There are many Stones songs that I like... too numerous to mention actually, BUT... as far back as I can remember... The Beatles were far superior in my eyes.
They were polished.
They had more personality.
The four of them fit together so well and you couldn't even see where the seams were.
They were funnier- punnier. :)
They had more range musically.
They were better-looking, and they just fit well within what my heart and soul told me was good stuff.

Nuff said.
JudithKristen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 20, 2010, 04:10 PM   #46
DizzymissLizzy909
Sun King
 
DizzymissLizzy909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 02, 2003
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 13,890
Default

The Stones are probably the closest comparison to the Beatles in term of their popularity and lasting effect on music, as well as pop culture. However, the Beatles REALLY revolutionalized sound. The Stones were seen as public rebels, but the Beatles took things to a higher level in their music, which is what everyone remembers at the end of the day.

Nevertheless, and I guess I probably don't know enough about each individual Rolling Stone to judge their character... but they also do seem to have great personality! Especially on stage. It's amazing they've stayed together through the years, especially with the stress of being rock stars.
__________________
"To realize it's all within yourself, no one else can make you change."
DizzymissLizzy909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 16, 2010, 12:28 AM   #47
raul
Paperback Writer
 
raul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 03, 2006
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Posts: 2,617
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt.McCartney View Post

For one thing, Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts, Brian Jones, Keith Richard and Bill Wyman continually behave in a sullen, moody and distasteful manner. They have little or no respect for any form of authority, and seem to go out of their way to be as obnoxious and destructive as possible.On the other hand, The Beatles have been know to do many uncalled for acts of kindness. Derek Taylor, their former publicity manager, once told me that they make a point of doing charity benefits back in England.

------------------
"If Hitler were alive today, the German girls wouldn't let him bomb London if the Beatles were there."
- Anonymous, date unknown
I think that respect for authority is a weakness. For example, I respect Jerry & co. and all the members here. But it's giving me a hard time. I have to watch out what will I say etc. I don't know if John had a respect for authority. He is seen as a rebbel, a prototipical, archetypical rebel. I don't think he had respect for authority in school. Elvis was his idol, but I think his final verdict on Elvis was given in the '80 Playboy interview: '...Elvis, who is now in hell'. Maybe the only exception is Yoko. Mick has no respect for anything, and I don't see anything wrong with that.

The 'good guys-bad guys' was intentionally created, to sell more albums etc. I don't think Stones were all that serius with satanism, it was all a joke and get more money, which is bad, yes. The more their parents were outraged with Stones, the more it made their fans even more rebellious and buy more records.

I like Stones' music. They're 2nd best.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beatlebangs1964 View Post
What's up with that? Sir Mick! Now that he shares the honor of being knighted with Sir Paul, Sir Eric and Sir Elton and Sir Ringo, he'll be singing, "Let's Spend the Knight Together!"

------------------
Then we will remember things we said today. Yeah.
-- Beatles, 1964

Read www.rooftopsessions.com for high caliber Beatles fan fiction.

BB1964


Quote:
Originally Posted by ;168519
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Tahoma, Arial, Sans-Serif">Quote:</font><HR>Originally Posted By AmandaLennon:
oh...this is like arguing about the gender of the angels. why gently bash the stones now over money comparisons(sp)? i´ve never seen this in my life!!!
and is such a blah-blah-blah to say they wanted to be the beatles, f you REALLY know their work and can see how thin their enormous irony was toward the beatles;
for them, it was all fun and no worries; but the beatles cared a lot about musical growth, but that does not diminish the rs as a band. they´re a lot of fun and rebel style and sex and wild!
c´mon... no one needs to compare them.
the rolling stones WERE the greatest rock 'n' roll band of the 60´s, now... the beatles ARE the greatest BAND of all times.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



------------------
The Love You Take Is Equal To The Love You Make
I agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DizzymissLizzy909 View Post
The Stones are probably the closest comparison to the Beatles in term of their popularity and lasting effect on music, as well as pop culture. However, the Beatles REALLY revolutionalized sound. The Stones were seen as public rebels, but the Beatles took things to a higher level in their music, which is what everyone remembers at the end of the day.

Nevertheless, and I guess I probably don't know enough about each individual Rolling Stone to judge their character... but they also do seem to have great personality! Especially on stage. It's amazing they've stayed together through the years, especially with the stress of being rock stars.
I agree. Mick and Charlie have great wit.
__________________
Get on with it already

Legs
raul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 18, 2010, 06:10 AM   #48
AeolianCadence
Wild Honey Pie
 
Join Date: Feb 20, 2010
Posts: 578
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Get Back View Post
Such is the power of managers, and to some extent, the media.
Heh. I had the same thought reading the extremely silly OP. Behold the power of Brian Epstein.
AeolianCadence is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 28, 2010, 05:03 PM   #49
beatlesgirl_fab
Fool On The Hill
 
beatlesgirl_fab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 11, 2009
Location: Long Beach, California, USA
Posts: 27
Default

Though the Beatles are and will always be #1 to me, I love the Rolling Stones too!!
__________________
I'm a Beatlemaniac and PROUD OF IT

I love John, Paul, George, and Ringo

I am a girl with many hobbies and interests
beatlesgirl_fab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2010, 10:49 AM   #50
AHarrison
Nowhere Man
 
AHarrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 21, 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 255
Default

Beatles > Stones

If it wasn't for the Beatles there may not have even have been the Stones.
__________________
A fiendish thingy!

"And so it's true, pride comes before a fall
I'm telling you so that you won't lose all."


12/8/80 & 11/29/01 RIP♥
John's not dead, he's only sleeping.
AHarrison is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 26, 2010, 12:13 PM   #51
george<3
Dr. Robert
 
george<3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 25, 2009
Location: The round, spherical object that we call Earth.
Posts: 1,496
Default

Exactly, AHarrison. The Beatles really set up paths for a lot of other bands as well as their own.

For that we will be forever grateful!! I do like the Stones too.
__________________


The power of magic, Beatley, Georgeous rainbows COMPELS you!!
george<3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 28, 2010, 09:57 PM   #52
The_Taxman
Rocky Raccoon
 
The_Taxman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Location: here there and everywhere
Posts: 402
Send a message via AIM to The_Taxman
Default

One of the best things about The Beatles is there's no "most important beatle". If someone put a gun to my head and told me to choose, I couldn't. Of course, I'd say whoever came to mind first just to survive, but I wouldn't mean it. Where with a band like The Who, I could, after thinking for a while, conclude that Pete Townshend was the most important member.
The_Taxman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 28, 2010, 01:09 PM   #53
BeatleFanForever
Little Child
 
Join Date: Aug 22, 2010
Location: San Antonio, Texas U.S.A.
Posts: 94
Default

How's it going everyone? I hope that everyone's weekend is going great! THE BEATLES vs THE STONES! Sounds like a Godzilla movie! You're talking about two different bands that were very diplomatic and were (And still) the best of friends. It took a BEATLES song (I Wanna Be Your Man) to put THE STONES on the map. THE BEATLES represented the total greatness of Rock n' Roll (They were no saints either) while THE STONES would re-invent the Rock n' Roll lifestyle by taking it to a new level.

The winner and still THE GREATEST of them all... THE BEATLES! Take care.
BeatleFanForever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 06, 2010, 03:38 PM   #54
beatlebangs1964
Moderator
 
beatlebangs1964's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 23, 2001
Posts: 37,552



Send a message via AIM to beatlebangs1964
Default

10,000 views! Way to go, fellow Beatle Linkers!

Subjective as these polls always are. For me the answer is quite simple. BEATLES! The Beatles, the Fab 4, the Long Haired Lads from Liverpool, the Merseyside Moptops, the Fabs, the Beatles.


The Beatles, simple as that.
__________________
With a love like that, you know you should be glad, yeah, yeah, yeah!-- Beatles, 1963

If I seem to act unkind, it's only me, it's not my mind. -- George Harrison, 1966

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/c...rtc/signatures

http://www.reddit.com/r/troubledteen...aten_at_green/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7g0oiJ52Gw
beatlebangs1964 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 12, 2013, 10:06 PM   #55
Winston O' Boogie
Day Tripper
 
Winston O' Boogie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 12, 2013
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 310
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AHarrison View Post
Beatles > Stones

If it wasn't for the Beatles there may not have even have been the Stones.
or even Wings > Plastic Ono Band > The Traveling Wilburys
Winston O' Boogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 17, 2013, 12:48 AM   #56
John from Liverpool
Little Child
 
Join Date: Jul 01, 2013
Posts: 67
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BeatleFanForever View Post
How's it going everyone? I hope that everyone's weekend is going great! THE BEATLES vs THE STONES! Sounds like a Godzilla movie! You're talking about two different bands that were very diplomatic and were (And still) the best of friends. It took a BEATLES song (I Wanna Be Your Man) to put THE STONES on the map. THE BEATLES represented the total greatness of Rock n' Roll (They were no saints either) while THE STONES would re-invent the Rock n' Roll lifestyle by taking it to a new level.

The winner and still THE GREATEST of them all... THE BEATLES! Take care.
George Harrison indirectly got the Stones their first recording deal. The man from DECCA who turned down the Beatles, Dick Rowe, was at a party in Liverpool. Professionally embarrassed and not wanting to make another big mistake, under the recommendation of George Harrison he took on the Stones. He may not have rated them himself. The Beatles had heard the unknown Stones live in Richmond in SW London, taken there by one of their crew, who by chance came across them.

Lennon and McCartney were at the Stones recording of I Wanna Be Your Man. They went to the side of the studio and changed the words on the fly, which greatly impressed the Stones. The Stones version was more course with only Jagger singing. The Beatles version was a Merseysound arrangement and all sang in harmonies at some point. But the raw sound the Stones gave out, giving the their first hit, was their watermark and it stayed with them all through. Whether Lennon & McCartney had any input to the arrangement of this sound I don't know. Lennon & McCartney did not like other doing exact copies of their songs, so would have diverted the Stones away from their type of sound.

I was recently talking to an old guy who in 1962/63 was 17. He said he was attending a family wedding opposite the club where the Stones played in Richmond. He and those of his age were bored and went over to this club opposite (never sold alcohol), after first having a few in the pub nearby. It was the Rolling Stones - he had never heard of them. He said he found it amazing that Brian Jones changed a snapped guitar string while he was still playing.

Last edited by John from Liverpool : Nov 17, 2013 at 01:28 AM.
John from Liverpool is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2014, 09:07 AM   #57
John Cee
Day Tripper
 
John Cee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 21, 2006
Location: Terrace BC
Posts: 328
Default

Ah yes -- the eternal struggle between Good and Evil. "The Beatles want to Hold Your Hand -- the Stones want to burn down your village" or whatever the quote was.

The fact is both bands produced ground-breaking music that has stood the test of time and still sounds great half-a-century later.

For me, the Stones are a great R&B combo that is at its best with loud, snarly-sounding music. Their riffs are catchy but very repetitive (once I was in a restaurant where "Last Time" was playing in the background, and I couldn't get over how monotonous the main guitar riff was -- although I love this song). I've never much cared for their slower stuff -- I just don't think Mick has the voice for it... but he rocks as good as anyone ever.

The Beatles, on the other hand, produced music, harmonies, melodies, rockers, trippers, eastern music, western music -- you name it -- and it sounds as good now as it did All Those Years Ago.

I like listening to the Stones when I'm in a certain mood -- and I like them a lot -- but The Beatles are good for ANY mood -- and at any time.

There really is no comparison.
__________________

I've got nothing to say, but it's okay!
GOOD MORNING!
GOOD MORNING!!
GOOD MORNING!!!
John Cee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 25, 2014, 11:18 AM   #58
hibgal
Sun King
 
hibgal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 01, 2006
Posts: 26,650



Default

Twelve years and still ticking. This thread has lasted longer than The Beatles!

As to Stones v. Beatles, it's like comparing apples with oranges. Besides both being fruit they have little in common. Beatles lasted for a decade or so by the clock but packed in several lifetimes of great songs in those years. Stones, well, they're still going strong (well, sorta! ) and have had decades to cement their fame. Beatles evolved all the time, both lyrically, musically, artistically and personally, while Stones is the same year after year after year after year after... errr... What was that again?
__________________



Sometimes I dream in colors
It always happens when
I find myself with others
Who don't pretend
hibgal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2014, 10:44 PM   #59
letmerollit
Apple Scruff
 
letmerollit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 154
Default

Not only did The Beatles give The Rolling Stones one of their first hits with their rock n roll song I Wanna Be Your Man as you know,and they wrote it right in front of them and Keith Richards and Mick Jagger were impressed and like wow how can you write a song just like that and it motivated them to start writing their own songs.


And as I already said The Rolling Stones were good friends with and fans of The Beatles.

Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sessions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him.Also Mick Jagger was such a big Beatles fan that in May 1967 when The Beatles were redording their song Baby You're A Rich Man he came there and stood on the sidelines to watch and listen to them recording it. His name is also on the tape box and he likely sang at the end verses.In Mark Lewishon's great detailed music diary book, The Beatles Recording Sessions there is a big black and white picture of Mick Jagger sitting in between John and Paul in the recording console room during The Beatles Revolver recording sessions too.


The Beatles remastered albums sold much more 40 years after their break up than The Rolling Stones remastered albums and they are still together! The Beatles have the best selling album of the last decade with their CD 1.And soon after thir music went on iTunes,it went to the top.


And Brian Jones played the saxaphone on the strange Beatles song, You Know My Name Look Up The Number and he and Mick Jagger's girlfriend at the time Marriane Faithful contributed sound effects on the song Yellow Submarine.

As this guy Sal66 who is also a musician and has also posted on sites debunking ignorant cr*p about The Beatles has rightfully pointed out, The Beatles wrote,played and recorded I Feel Fine (which The All Music Guide says has brilliant,active ,difficult guitar leads and riffs) in the Fall of 1964 which was the first use of feedback guitar on a pop rock record and it also had a prominent guitar riff throughout this very good song almost a year *before* The Rolling Stones's Satisfaction came out.


And on John's great Norwegian Wood recorded in the Fall of 1965,George Harrison was the first to play a sitar on a pop rock song and it was released on their great album Rubber Soul in December and then in May 1966 The Rolling Stones song Paint It Black came out with Brian Jones playing a sitar!


And in Paul McCartney's authorized biography Many Years From Now, Mick Jagger's former girlfriend singer Marianne Faithful says that she and Mick used to go over to Paul's house a lot and hang out in his music room. She said he never went to see them at their house they always went to visit him because he was Paul McCartney.She also said that Mick was intimidated by Paul but that Paul was totally oblivious to this.


Paul also says in this book that he turned Mick on to pot in his music room and he said which is funny because a lot of people would assume it was the other way around. Mick Jagger was also with The Beatles in Bangor when they got the call that Brian Epstein was found dead because he went on the train with them with his then girl friend singer Marianne Faithful to see the Maharishi to study meditation that weekend.


Also Mick Jagger is quoted on a Rolling Stones fan site,timeisonourside.com saying that Keith Richards liked The Beatles because he was quite interested in their chord sequences and he says he also liked their harmonies which he said were always a slight problem for The Rolling Stones.He said Keith always tried to get the harmonies off the ground but they always seemed messy.Mick then says,that what they never really got together were Keith and Brian singing backup vocals
and he said it didn't work because Keith was a better singer and to keep going,oooh,ooh,ooh(he laughs) and he said Brian liked all of those oohs which Keith had to put up with.He also said Keith was capable of much stronger vocals than ooh,ooh,ooh.

On this same fan site Keith Richards is quoted from 1971 saying that The Beatles were perfect for opening doors,when they went to America they left it wide open for them and he said that The Rolling Stones could never have gone to America without them.He also said that The Beatles are so f**king good at what they did.

Last edited by letmerollit : Feb 15, 2014 at 12:42 AM.
letmerollit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2014, 10:45 PM   #60
letmerollit
Apple Scruff
 
letmerollit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 30, 2010
Posts: 154
Default

The Rolling Stones also wrote quite a few soft sentimental pop kind of songs,Lady Jane,As Tears Go By,Rubey Tuesday,Angie,Wild Horses,Waiting On A Friend and the 2 dreadful disco imitations,Miss You and Emotional Rescue. At least when Paul McCartney did a disco like song,Good Night tonight it was good interesting sounding music!
letmerollit is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Advertisements

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Site Features
Search Links

  Advanced Search
Category Jump



BeatleMail

FREE E-MAIL
@ BEATLEMAIL.COM


Username


Password




New User Sign-Up!
Lost Password?
Beatles History




Donate
The costs of running our database and discussion forum are steadily rising. Any help we receive is greatly appreciated. Click HERE for more information about donating to BeatleLinks.
Extras
» Chat Room
» Current News
» Monthly Contest
» Interviews Database
» Random Site
» Banner Exchange
» F.A.Q.
» Advertise
» Credits
» Legal
» Contact Us
Copyright © 2000-2019 BeatleLinks
All Rights Reserved