- This topic has 66 replies, 27 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by
.
- Posts
The Stones definetly. Especially the Mick Taylor era, they were never better before or since.
I like both but The Beatles are the best pop/rock group ever in my opinion.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
As my renditions of Honky Tonk Woman, Jumping Jack Flash & Brown Sugar reached near legendary heights
in a certain pub in Eccles, Salford back in the early noughties I’ll have to go with the Stones.But John Lennon is as near a hero for me as it gets….
Beatles by a long way. I appreciate some Rolling Stones stuff but just couldn’t get ‘into them’ as much as the Beatles.
Beatles for me.
The Rolling Stones were/are very good too.
In horse terms The Beatles are Arkle while The Rolling Stones are Desert Orchid.
Hey moral crusaders, what about the performance enhancing drugs they took to write their songs ?
Hey moral crusaders, what about the performance enhancing drugs they took to write their songs ?
Still 500 tons short of what Keith Richards consumed in a week.
Gambling Only Pays When You're Winning
Aye himself, he’s no exactly a good advert for no taking drugs considering the fact he’s still here, and doesn’t appear to have the illneses alot of non junkies at his age have. I wonder who the best non druggy artist is. I don’t know many stones or beatles tracks, but i love Bruce Springsteen. Did Brucie the boss take all those substances ?
I remember Iggy Pop and the Stooges were on Jonathan Woss, and one of them said they tried to smoke a spiders web when they were out of their box !
Moral crusaders, i await your response. ‘Things were different in those days’, isn’t an acceptable retort.
Goldie, this is a true story…Mick Jagger once phoned up Paul O’Grady (Lily Savage) and told him to stop drinking with and stay away from Keith Richards because he was a bad influenece on him
Imagine being a bad influenece on Keith Richards
Goldie, this is a true story…Mick Jagger once phoned up Paul O’Grady (Lily Savage) and told him to stop drinking with and stay away from Keith Richards because he was a bad influenece on him
Imagine being a bad influenece on Keith Richards
He was probably rat arsed off a lethal c0cktail when he offered his kind advice.Got a feeling that Mick Jagger is a non drinking non smoking sort of bloke now, and has been for a long time. I’ve also been told
that they don’t much like each other and when they’re not touring they don’t speak. And who’d’ve thought that Ringo Starr would become the voice of Thomas the Tank Engine [not very rock’n’roll]. As for the music, listening to The Beatles makes me feel very old and I’m not sure that I’ve ever really enjoyed it much. I’ve never owned a Stones album, but would like to listen to more of their, possibly less well known stuff. I was more of a Yardbirds fan.
Stones, although I have a reasonably big collection I haven’t got an album by either of them. I like more of the Stone’s songs and vocally The Beatles do nothing for me at all.
Favourite Stones track:-
I shld like the stones more because they are clearly closer in sound to my love of soul music and i do love so much of their stuff…. Wild horses, Gimme shelter and of course the brilliant sympathy for the devil
But there is no comparison at all
the Beatles were the absolute giants of 20th century music. They were so stunningly productive they could release two of the finest tracks you could possibly hope to hear and yet be so very contrasting, on one single. Penny Lane and Strawberry fields of course. There lyricism has never been surpassed and their invention was stunning. Even lesser known tracks such as Things she said today , for no one and across the universe would be peaks for just about any other group
You can continually revisit their work and hear something new.
No band or group of musicians has come even slightly close to their brilliance. the wealth of their recording in just seven years (the gap between two albums for many groups these days) is hard to grasp sometimes
I dislike throwing the word genius around (sure Mozart and Coltrane I would say) but without doubt it applies to this incredible group
And what is so very noticable is that virtually none of their material has dated one bit. Even the very early tracks sound incredibly fresh
As an aside, I would recommend the bio Cant buy me love …as the best book on the group
VG post Clivexxx, agree with almost every word
It could be argued that their post ’67 (Pepper) work was weak in comparison with their earlier stuff which only strengthens your point about the quality
and
quantity of their music in the five years from ’63 to ’67 – unremittingly superb and original
They also had the good grace and sense to call it a day before any of them reached 30, unlike the Stones who haven’t released anything of much note since Exile on Main St in ’72 and have been an embarrasment for years.
Other than for comparison in ‘popularity’ I don’t think the Beatles and Stones can be compared. The former were wholly original, the latter essentially derivative of the Blues R’n’B R’n’R tradition; though much of their ’60s stuff was very derivative and damn good
in a certain pub in Eccles, Salford back in the early noughties I’ll have to go with the Stones.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.