• 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 .
#121
MarkMgibson said:
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.
Click to expand...
Be that as it may, I've only enjoyed the most heavily produced Beatles work that featured, ironically, less of the Beatles.

Abbey Road, Magical Mystery Tour, or Sgt. Pepper may be great albums but the amount of "Beatles" you hear on them is relatively limited.

I enjoy the Stones' albums even without extensive overdubs, I find the stripped down Beatles work to be boring.
 
#122
Unrepresented said:
Be that as it may, I've only enjoyed the most heavily produced Beatles work that featured, ironically, less of the Beatles.

Abbey Road, Magical Mystery Tour, or Sgt. Pepper may be great albums but the amount of "Beatles" you hear on them is relatively limited.

I enjoy the Stones' albums even without extensive overdubs, I find the stripped down Beatles work to be boring.
Click to expand...
I think you are overestimating the number of tracks on those records with big input from outside musicians.
 
#124
GregC said:
I think you are overestimating the number of tracks on those records with big input from outside musicians.
Click to expand...
I actually am looking up the personnel out of curiosity now.

Some of the stuff is surprisingly sparse in terms of outside contributors, and some of it's interesting -- did you know that Keith Moon played brush drums on "All You Need Is Love?"

I'm still convinced that there was a great deal of debt owed to George Martin's contributions, even if it was simply guiding their raw talent toward more interesting choices.
 
#128
CapnSev said:
Yep. I've listened and I think there's better.
Click to expand...

He meant you should listening to them with the conclusion they are God's gift to man before making an assessment.

And that assessment should validate the already-concluded idea they are way better musicians than they were, way better songwriters than they were, did more for music than anyone will ever do, were major philosophers, did more for recording than everyone combined, had immaculate side projects, didn't play live because they were too good for that, and only spent hours in the studios by themselves coming up with genius with no input or influence from anyone - ever (including the blues bands that predated them, American roots music, Buddy Holly, Elvis, The Kinks, or The Beach Boys).
 
#129
The Beatles all the way! They changed the way the music industry worked. Gone were the Brill St. songwriters, penning crap for Steve and Edie and Pat Boone.
How can a band, still remain #1, churning out hit after hit, topping the charts, up to four years, after stopping touring!
Nobody else has ever done that. It would be the end of anyone elses carreer.
Also take note that the Stones NEVER charted on the radio, until, they released 'I Wanna Be Your Man', written by Lennon and McCatney.
 
#130
Who even thought there was a comparison after the promoters of the '60s disappeared?

By the by, if you can't hear it for yourself, Leonard Bernstein considered Lennon and McCartney to be the best songwriters of the 20th century.
 
#133
As someone who saw every live act in NYC from '64 through the mid '70s, my humble opinion is The Who were the most exciting act of all, with James Brown a close second ...

... until Hendrix appeared. Then everybody stopped and looked.
 
#134
marchone said:
As someone who saw every live act in NYC from '64 through the mid '70s, my humble opinion is The Who were the most exciting act of all, with James Brown a close second ...

... until Hendrix appeared. Then everybody stopped and looked.
Click to expand...

I'm extremely envious, and I agree (though only from recordings and live footage) that The Who were the best live R&R band in history. Hendrix was sometimes brilliant, but often very ordinary (and sometimes dreadful). Just too many drugs.
 
#135
Ric5 said:
The Beatles had 3 guys who could play bass better than Wyman
The Beatles had 3 guys who were better song writers than Jagger Richards
The Beatles had 4 guys who could sing better than Jagger
The Beatles had 4 guys who could dance better than Jagger

Can you imagine the Stones doing anything remotely as good as Abbey Road?
Click to expand...

Bill Wyman wasn't even the best bassist in the Stones; Keith AND Ronnie are both better. Keith is a great bassist.

Love all the Brit invasion groups, but c'mon guys, is this really even up for debate? Check the poll, the Stones are getting their asses handed to them. If anybody can produce any poll taken at any time that shows the Stones as more popular than the Beatles, I would fall right over. And I am a HUGE Stones fan. But the Beatles are just ...better. And anyone that thinks the Beatles couldn't bring it live never saw any of their early performances. Check out the Melbourne show on youtube. Then tell me the Beatles weren't a good live band. They rock their asses off.
 
#137
Th early Stones with Brian Jones did offer some good tunes and potential. What ever happen there the potential was never completed.

The Beatles had a lot of support from many people. And did some of the greatest albums ever. The White Album is one of my favorites.

But I wish I could have seen what another couple of years with the original Stones could have done. Having Mick Taylor in the band was just so wrong. And Ron Wood being a prefect fit eliminated any of the tension that Jones would have provided.

After all the shoveling here my vote would go to The Beatles.

And they would have better if the they allowed the "junior" members to contribute more. Just as the Stones would have better with the Jagger Richards ego kept in check.

Bill Wyman has returned to his slot as a BL and apparently is doing well. Charlie Watts, who might never have been a rock drummer ( see Ginger Baker) has experience and maturity on the other, but not the ego.
 
#138
No sure how to do this. I am sure everyone on this site is familiar with the Stones and the Beatles.

Rather that the stale this band is better than that may I request that we give some ink to lessor known bands. There was alot of stuff from that era that never got the daylight it deserved.

As a Bassist and long time fan of Martin Turner allow me to suggest you check that out.

Or since Peter Banks recently passed away Flash was always a fav. I was able to catch them live in Jersey city circa 1972.

I would be glad to hear about a band I missed and would enjoy listening to. Any suggestions?
 
#139
MarkMgibson said:
I'm extremely envious, and I agree (though only from recordings and live footage) that The Who were the best live R&R band in history. Hendrix was sometimes brilliant, but often very ordinary (and sometimes dreadful). Just too many drugs.
Click to expand...

I saw The Who at least a dozen times from '66 to '69. They never failed to reach the same level of energy each time. They just never did a bad set.

I saw Hendrix three times. Their last Monkees show, one set at the Cafe Au Go GO, and one of the New Year's Eve shows at The Fillmore East as Band of Gypsies. The first show he was in a bad mood because of the audience but was outstanding nevertheless. The second time was he at his peak. The last he was rubbing his face from the smack. The reviews still raved about those shows.

I also saw Cream on their first US tour. Outstanding sound and musicianship but not the performers the others were. They just stood and played. The only concession to showmanship was the WW I flight helmets they wore on the first album cover.
 
#140
Freez said:
... anyone that thinks the Beatles couldn't bring it live never saw any of their early performances.
Click to expand...

Many who were on the scene in the early days post-Hamburg have said the Beatles were the tightest band in the UK then.

I saw both Shea Stadium shows but I didn't know much then. Still, they were clearly better than any of the opening acts.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back