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
Except for the part where they destroyed their instruments (considering they were working, relatively good instruments). To me, that is analogous to beating a puppy to death. Seriously. Not cool at all for me. Not even when this was done by Jimi.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Back in the day it was Beatles vs Stones ... and this is hard to believe but MONKEES vs Beatles was also a hot topic.
The Beatles had an edge ... they had McCartney ... he wrote Yesterday ... it was covered by more artists than any other song. And he also wrote the first heavy metal song ... Helter Skelter.
The Beatles had an edge ... they had McCartney ... he wrote Yesterday ... it was covered by more artists than any other song. And he also wrote the first heavy metal song ... Helter Skelter.
I'm a super-minority here I realize, but the Beatles just never did anything for me. It all sounds so cookie-cutter to me and I feel like there were a lot of people doing way cooler stuff at the same time as the Beatles, especially in the world of African-American music.
I dig the Stones edgier, unrefined, imperfect sound. They did put out countless albums of pure crap between the good ones though.
I dig the Stones edgier, unrefined, imperfect sound. They did put out countless albums of pure crap between the good ones though.
The Beatles bucked a trend that no other band ever managed. They went from the "teeny bopper pop" of I Want to Hold Your Hand to the later, outside the box experiments of Tomorrow Never knows, or the Rock'n'Roll chamber music of Eleanor Rigby. I can't think of another band with a history of both pop and experimental that didn't develop the other way around.
An instrument is a piece of wood with electronics....
I bet you're against racing as well, eh?
Just about every Brit band during that period did similar things. All of those bands evolved.
The logistics of staging a reunion, expense, time, labor, etc., are just too astronomical to organize from the grave, even for The Beatles.
Hell, they couldn't even get on a stage when they were together and alive!
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
...Where is the poll to see how many people think Yoko Ono had anything, what-so-ever, to do with the breakup of the Beatles?
Yoko was and is the worst lead singer for a band ever.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzKEix4PXBU
Love the Beatles, our band plays enough of their songs, but lately I'm really digging the rawness of the Stones. Two iconic bands that helped change the world.
I always preferred the Beatles, but it was because of McCartney. To say he revolutionized bass playing is an understatement but he did it while SINGING.
And you throw in the writing...forget about it.
And you throw in the writing...forget about it.
Stick_Player
Inactive
- Nov 13, 2009
- 4,149
- 937
- Disclosures
- Endorser: Plants vs. Zombies Pea Shooters
Wow. Cooler "stuff" than I Am The Walrus, Strawberry Fields Forever, A Day In The Life - this is cookie-cutter music?
"Edgier, unrefined, imperfect sound." Are you making an excuse for the Stones' lesser abilities?
I don't think you've ACTUALLY listened to the Beatles.
Yeah, you'll get no argument from me about that. I cringe whenever I see expensive instruments being smashed up. What a waste.
Ability level does not necessarily reflect good music to different ears.
Yep. I've listened and I think there's better.
Alkali Ike
Gold Supporting Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 2,853
- 15,654
- Disclosures
- I never actually learned to play very well
Alkali Ike
Gold Supporting Member
- Jan 1, 2011
- 2,853
- 15,654
- Disclosures
- I never actually learned to play very well
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Going back to my earlier post on the Beatles, I agree that those are all excellent songs. My issue is that the reason they're excellent is less the Beatles and more George Martin and the studio musicians he brought in to fill out those songs.
The Stones sounded great without a world class arranger and an orchestra filling out their sound. The Beatles, personally don't do anything for me before Revolver, and then, it's almost entirely the production of the songs that's interesting. The Beatles bore me as a stripped down band, if you don't agree, listen to the Let It Be album, the album they tried to intentionally create without the overdubs and orchestras. They even felt betrayed by the flourishes that were added to make Long And Winding Road the single it was. Eventually, even the Beatles agreed, and made Abbey Road with almost nonstop overdubs.
While I agree George Martin was a brilliant producer, both Lennon and McCartney were no slouches in the studio. Even Martin says that they knew what the wanted to do with their songs, and he just did his best to accommodate them.
