McCartney had some pretty overlooked gems though, imo. Back To The Egg comes to mind. Love that one.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
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?
- Thread starter Snakeman1066
- Start date
McCartney had some pretty overlooked gems though, imo. Back To The Egg comes to mind. Love that one.
Ric5 thought that the drummers were tied. I disagree.
I think Ringo is one of the most underrated rock/pop drummers of all time. He played fairly simple rhythms, but he was a metronome. He didn't speed up or slow down. I also think he had great taste. He knew when to drop out or only play a tambourine. It takes maturity to know when not to play or not to play the entire drum kit.
As for Charlie Watts. They guy doesn't even hit the high hat and the snare at the same time. When he hits the snare, he doesn't play the high hat. That makes me think he can't hit them cleanly simultaneously. Maybe he doesn't hit them together for other reasons, but I've never heard why.
I think Ringo is one of the most underrated rock/pop drummers of all time. He played fairly simple rhythms, but he was a metronome. He didn't speed up or slow down. I also think he had great taste. He knew when to drop out or only play a tambourine. It takes maturity to know when not to play or not to play the entire drum kit.
As for Charlie Watts. They guy doesn't even hit the high hat and the snare at the same time. When he hits the snare, he doesn't play the high hat. That makes me think he can't hit them cleanly simultaneously. Maybe he doesn't hit them together for other reasons, but I've never heard why.
Actually, John, Paul, and George were playing together as of the late 50s and they broke up pretty much right after they finished Abbey Road in 1969...
And to say that early Stones were better musicians than early Beatles is ridiculous. Maybe YOU liked their music better but there is no denying that Lennon and McCartney were much better songwriters and all around musicians than anyone in The Rolling Stones. Hell, weren't the Stones sitting in a studio waiting for John and Paul to finish writing " I wanna Be Your man" so they could record it? By the time the first Beatles record came out, John and Paul had written about 300 songs. In fact, they were one of the first, if not the first, rock/skiffle/whatever band to come out in the UK that were writing their own songs. All of them sang too.
Yeah, the Stones just don't stack up against The Beatles no matter how you look at it. I would guess Mick and the boys were mighty relieved when the lads called it quits. Now maybe someone would listen to them. lol
Yeah, the Stones just don't stack up against The Beatles no matter how you look at it. I would guess Mick and the boys were mighty relieved when the lads called it quits. Now maybe someone would listen to them. lol
I'm wondering how much of this disagreeing has to do with age.
When I started listening to rock seriously the Beatles had been doing their impression of a Norwegian Blue for a couple of years. None of my contemporaries listened to The Beatles. The first two albums I can remember buying were Zoso and Goats Head Soup.
When somebody says "Beatles" I think "I want to hold your hand".
When somebody says "Stones" I think "Star Star". Actually I think of the real title of that song but forum rules are rules
When I started listening to rock seriously the Beatles had been doing their impression of a Norwegian Blue for a couple of years. None of my contemporaries listened to The Beatles. The first two albums I can remember buying were Zoso and Goats Head Soup.
When somebody says "Beatles" I think "I want to hold your hand".
When somebody says "Stones" I think "Star Star". Actually I think of the real title of that song but forum rules are rules
I can't speak for anyone else, but I bought my first records in the mid 70s, years after they broke up, and a bunch of them were Beatles albums. I listened to the "blue album" compilation all the time. A few of my middle school buddies were deep into the Beatles then, too.
Charlie used to play drums like any other drummer in the world, but during some recordings, someone sugested to him to not hit the hi-hat with the snare, so the sound of the snare would come out "cleaner". And from then on he made it a habit.
But, as the metronome thing you mentioned about Ringo... you are totally right! Did someone ever notice how Stones' "Honky Tonk Women" speeds up without any reason? To me, that's bad drumming right there.
And I totally recomend everybody to watch the Beatles' concert at Washington Coliseum in 1964. Ringo is on fire and driving the band forwards, and his drumming is nothing but amazing.
I was referring to the ages of the people commenting
Yeah, but I would think the average age of Stones fans and Beatles fans is likely to be close to the same, no?
FWIW, I am 44 and didn't get into The Beatles until after John Lennon was murdered. Some things are timeless. Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road, Let it Be. These are timeless.
Definitely the Stones! They are my favorite all-time band. Their music is so human, and so good. Don't get me wrong, I like the Beatles. I just like the Stones more.
Beatles.
They pioneered that majority of what is known and done today. Had a lot more firsts than just their number one's.
Starting with first tight band and first recorded feedback.
They pioneered that majority of what is known and done today. Had a lot more firsts than just their number one's.
Starting with first tight band and first recorded feedback.
Man I'm glad I came in and messed around on this thread. I would of never of learned that Charlie can't play the drums, Their songs suck...they could never write, they can't sing... Jagger can't dance..Wow! Thanks! there are millions of Stones fan's who need to read this thread...we all have been fooled for 50 years.
McCartney reportedly wrote Helter Skelter in response to Townshend's boast of I Can See For Miles being the heaviest record The Who had made.
Look to earlier Yardbirds releases for proto-metal. Particularly Stroll On and Beck's Bolero.
Beck's Bolero might have been the first supergroup lineup. Too bad it never made past one session due to contractual obligations. Jeff Beck, John Paul Jones, Nicky Hopkins and Keith Moon were on it.
It was a theory -- people older than me were listening to their music as it came out and people younger than me (like yourself) discovered the entire body of their work at once.
I'm not saying they weren't a great band with an amazing impact on popular music. It's just when I think "rock" they don't immediately spring to mind.
I've owned two Beatles albums. Abbey Road and the White Album which I've owned many copies of
