• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Beatles or Stones?

Beatles or Rolling Stones

  • Beatles

    Votes: 242 70.8%

  • Rolling Stones

    Votes: 62 18.1%

  • Carrots

    Votes: 38 11.1%
  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
#242
GregC said:
Wow. I said earlier in the thread that this whole topic is purely subjective and I meant that, but this post makes it sound like you've spent very little time listening to the Beatles and jumped to some conclusions.

Edit: For the record, I really do like the Stones a lot. But I am hard-pressed to think of times when they "spit into the wind" stylistically. They started out doing blues covers, followed the Beatles into writing originals, followed the Beatles again into psychedelic music (with very bad results, IMO), and later put out a couple disco-ish songs around 1980 when that became the popular trend. Their great work was in between the psychedelia and the disco.
Click to expand...

Nope never listened to them I'm just a dumb kid :rolleyes: Anyhow who care's I love the Stones never dug the Beatles...life will go on.
 
#243
mellowinman said:
I have to go with experience on this one. My cover band has worked with six different "actual" drummers, and several fill-ins on more or less the same set list over four years.

Most of them have managed a lot of various John Bonham, Joey Kramer, Bun E Carlos, Mitch Mitchell and Nick Mason parts with either relative ease, or a bit of work, but every single one of them has had a much harder time nailing Ringo's parts on:

  • Don't Let me Down
  • Yer Blues (lots of time changes!)
  • While my Guitar Gently Weeps
Ringo had a completely different part, and distinctive style on each one of those, and many other Beatles songs. He was absolutely a BRILLIANT drummer, and played with an excellent feel, and had an instinct for the material. He made songs BETTER with his drumming ability, and was probably one of the all time great drummers.

When Lennon said, "Ringo's not even the best drummer in the Beatles," he was half-joking. Lennon was a joker. I don't know why people don't get that.

Ringo wasn't a TECHNICAL drummer. He had trouble rolling across the toms, because he played backwards, being left handed but set up for right handed. He had some interesting deficiencies, technically speaking, but he more than made up for them in creativity and style. And he was rock-solid; every bit as solid as any drummer you can name.

As soon as someone starts telling me how "bad" Ringo is, all they've done is proven to me that they either haven't really listened to the drums on Beatles songs, (and I mean right back to the early stuff,) or that they are completely ignorant about rock drumming.

Could Ringo play in Rush?

Hell no.

Could Neil Peart play in the Beatles?

Not a chance.

Ringo's drum contributions are singularly unique, and stand up very well over the test of time. He will be famous forever.
Click to expand...

Great post. I couldn't have said it better myself. One thing in particular which I have to echo is the fact that Ringo approached every song differently. "Rubber Soul" is my favorite example of this.
Since this is a Beatles/Stones thread, I'll compare him to Charlie Watts. Charlie is also fantastic, of course. But his style (and the Stones' songs call for it, probably) tends to rely on a relentless back beat, which is probably what he would have played on "Come Together" or "In My Life", if he'd been a Beatle. Ringo doubters should listen to those songs and see just how much further Ringo went. He did have trouble with rolls, it's true; but he had a ferocious back beat of his own (e.g. "She Loves You") and could swing as well as Charlie (e.g. "Tell Me Why", "All My Loving").
But the main thing is that creativity. He had brilliant songs to work with, and approached them like a musician/composer/arranger, not merely like a player.
 
#248
bassbully said:
No..No that was more of one of their gibberish songs IMO..horrible. It's ok you won't change my mind on the Beatles a very over rated band again IMO and again we all will be ok.
Click to expand...

"over rated" is the most over used phrase ever over used in an overly subjective conversation.

The Beatles are certainly NOT "over rated," and that is NOT simply an opinion. They bridged the gap between simple, catchy pop songs and what would become rock music.

They wrote scads of brilliant songs, and were at the forefront of musical and style trends for an entire decade. The captured the imaginations of millions, and have been covered by artists as diverse as Frank Sinatry, Lena Horne, Motley Crue, Joe Cocker, Alice Cooper; in short many of the greatest names in the history of music have covered their songs. THAT is how much musicians and performers think of the Beatles.

They were one of the very first bands to think of record ALBUMS as an artistic medium in their own right; before them, they were just collections of songs, featuring a hit or two, and a bunch of filler. From the Beatles, on through the next decade or two, many bands made albums that were whole artistic statements, and it seems like now, they've gone back to a lot of filler, with some exceptions.

You can say you don't like them.

You can say you don't get them.

In fact, you can say anything you like about them.

But to call them "over rated" is just not accurate. They are considered one of the most influential bands of all time, and that is exactly what they were.

No more, no less.
 
#249
mellowinman said:
"over rated" is the most over used phrase ever over used in an overly subjective conversation.

The Beatles are certainly NOT "over rated," and that is NOT simply an opinion. They bridged the gap between simple, catchy pop songs and what would become rock music.

They wrote scads of brilliant songs, and were at the forefront of musical and style trends for an entire decade. The captured the imaginations of millions, and have been covered by artists as diverse as Frank Sinatry, Lena Horne, Motley Crue, Joe Cocker, Alice Cooper; in short many of the greatest names in the history of music have covered their songs. THAT is how much musicians and performers think of the Beatles.

They were one of the very first bands to think of record ALBUMS as an artistic medium in their own right; before them, they were just collections of songs, featuring a hit or two, and a bunch of filler. From the Beatles, on through the next decade or two, many bands made albums that were whole artistic statements, and it seems like now, they've gone back to a lot of filler, with some exceptions.

You can say you don't like them.

You can say you don't get them.

In fact, you can say anything you like about them.

But to call them "over rated" is just not accurate. They are considered one of the most influential bands of all time, and that is exactly what they were.

No more, no less.
Click to expand...

I am glad you and others feel this way and I can respect that. I do respect what the Beatles did and they had a few good songs but I never conncected at all with them even when I was a kid...I take that back loved yellow submarine in grade school ;)

When I first heard the Rolling Stones and saw them on TV I was like whaaa? They were down and dirty rock and roll, gritty and their songs called to me and always will.

I came on this post to ruffle some feathers since I have had this type of debate over the Beatles before and Beatles fans can get crazy when someone says anything negitive about them..why? who knows?
I should be defending the Stones on this thread since the poll clearly shows what Tbers think and even said here...but why? Who cares ..we had some fun with it and it's cool. I own allot of Stones albums but no Beatles ..never did or will...oh wait... I have a burnt copy of the white album somewhere we were going to cover a song by them once.

I respect your thoughts and feelings and stand by mine...who really cares :smug:
 
#251
mellowinman said:
"over rated" is the most over used phrase ever over used in an overly subjective conversation.

The Beatles are certainly NOT "over rated," and that is NOT simply an opinion. They bridged the gap between simple, catchy pop songs and what would become rock music.

They wrote scads of brilliant songs, and were at the forefront of musical and style trends for an entire decade. The captured the imaginations of millions, and have been covered by artists as diverse as Frank Sinatry, Lena Horne, Motley Crue, Joe Cocker, Alice Cooper; in short many of the greatest names in the history of music have covered their songs. THAT is how much musicians and performers think of the Beatles.

They were one of the very first bands to think of record ALBUMS as an artistic medium in their own right; before them, they were just collections of songs, featuring a hit or two, and a bunch of filler. From the Beatles, on through the next decade or two, many bands made albums that were whole artistic statements, and it seems like now, they've gone back to a lot of filler, with some exceptions.

You can say you don't like them.

You can say you don't get them.

In fact, you can say anything you like about them.

But to call them "over rated" is just not accurate. They are considered one of the most influential bands of all time, and that is exactly what they were.

No more, no less.
Click to expand...

Great post. Unfortunately, some people just dont get it. Even if you are not a fan, to call yourself a musician and not to have respect for the Beatles simply displays one's musical incompetency. They are a shining example of the very reason Beaver and Gaga are megastars.
 
#253
bassbully said:
No..No that was more of one of their gibberish songs IMO..horrible. It's ok you won't change my mind on the Beatles a very over rated band again IMO and again we all will be ok.
Click to expand...
I guess it doesn't measure up to the poetry of Emotional Rescue or She's So Cold.;)

I truly have no interest in changing your opinion. Just thought your comments came from a place of very limited exposure. *shrug*
 
#255
GregC said:
I guess it doesn't measure up to the poetry of Emotional Rescue or She's So Cold.;)

I truly have no interest in changing your opinion. Just thought your comments came from a place of very limited exposure. *shrug*
Click to expand...

That's cool with any band that has been playing live and recording for 50 years is going to have a clunker or two that's just the truth ;)
 
#256
m0ranwad said:
Personally, I think the Beatles were better musicians, but I prefer listening to the early Stones (blues blues blues).
Click to expand...

I think the early Stones were better musicians than the early Beatles too, just for the reason you cite, blues. They were more pure, imo. But in the second half of the sixties, I think the Beatles body of work dwarfed what the Stones were doing, even though the Stones were still doing some very good stuff of their own.
 
#259
Beatles and Stones ...

Worst solo music -- John and Yoko when Yoko sings.
Best solo music -- McCartney.
Worst Dancer -- Jagger.
Best walking dead zombie -- Keith Richards.
Best Songwriter -- McCartney.
Best drummer -- tie.
Best natural singer -- McCartney.
Most brain damage from drugs -- Richards beats out Lennon here.
Best bass player -- McCartney.
Best Guitar player -- Ronnie Wood.
Best Harmonies -- Beatles.
Stayed together the longest -- Stones.
Can still play a concert together -- Stones.
 
#260
Ric5 said:
Beatles and Stones ...

Worst solo music -- John and Yoko when Yoko sings.
Best solo music -- McCartney.
Worst Dancer -- Jagger.
Best walking dead zombie -- Keith Richards.
Best Songwriter -- McCartney.
Best drummer -- tie.
Best natural singer -- McCartney.
Most brain damage from drugs -- Richards beats out Lennon here.
Best bass player -- McCartney.
Best Guitar player -- Ronnie Wood.
Best Harmonies -- Beatles.
Stayed together the longest -- Stones.
Can still play a concert together -- Stones.
Click to expand...

I think we need a new category:

Lennon or McCartney?

(I think Lennon was by far the better songwriter-McCartney never did an album as good as Plastic Ono Band, or Imagine-although Band on the Run gave it a good run!)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back