The Beatles as musicans?

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by zack01, Apr 8, 2005.

  1. zack01


    Aug 3, 2002
    How good was they?I have heard that the rollingstones members was why a head of the beatles as that true?
  2. Ívar Þórólfsson

    Ívar Þórólfsson Mmmmmm... Supporting Member

    Apr 9, 2001
    Kopavogur, Iceland

    1. Music related, belongs in misc.
    2. Stones better musicians then the Beatles? Some say yes, some say no, others don´t care and enjoy their music for what it is.
  3. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    No way are the Stones 'better' musicians than The Beatles.
    I would, however, definitely give Charlie Watts the nod over Ringo...Watts, IMO(again) is by far the best musician in the Stones.

    Here's a litmus test-
    During each's heyday, how did they sound LIVE?
    IMO, The Beatles were 'better'(using Live At The BBC, Let It Be, & various other live clips as a reference).
    Just recently, I picked up the Stones' Rock & Roll Circus DVD & Gimme Shelter DVD...not 'good'. ;)
    And that doesn't mean I don't like 'em; sometimes a 'raw' quality works.
  4. Toasted


    May 26, 2003
    Leeds, UK
    I dont really care who were 'better' musicians and you can't judge. They were both excellent, innovative bands. Thats the top and bottom for me.
  5. bassmonkeee

    bassmonkeee Supporting Member

    Sep 13, 2000
    Decatur, GA
    Are you really expecting different answers than the last 1000 times you've asked whether the Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles, or not?

    Are you writing a book, or something? :eyebrow:
  6. Broach_insound


    Jan 25, 2005
    New York
    this thread is pointless and that is a rediculous question
  7. bigtexashonk

    bigtexashonk Supporting Member

    Each band was doing it's own thing. Both are/were great at what they did. Both are excellent examples of greater than the sum of their parts, but their parts were pretty awesome in my book.
  8. smperry

    smperry Moderator Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Nov 3, 2003
    Bay Area, CA
    Endorsing Artist: Martin Keith Guitars
    +1 I couldn't even understand the question until I read it out loud. "why a head" <> "way ahead".

    and no, that's not true.
  9. smperry

    smperry Moderator Staff Member Gold Supporting Member

    Nov 3, 2003
    Bay Area, CA
    Endorsing Artist: Martin Keith Guitars
    :D :D :D

  10. when u figure this question out... then u'll have figured the streets out ;)

    (by streets i dnt mean the english geezers)

    Peace :bassist:
  11. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    Then there's "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out!" But that's about it for live stuff.

    Beyond playing instruments, the Beatles were much better vocally harmonizing and melodically. The Stone's were attitude as much as melody. I like much of both bands' music so it's difficult to rip on 'em.
  12. burk48237

    burk48237 Supporting Member

    Nov 22, 2004
    Oak Park, MI
    If all your looking for is "chops" the Who were probobly better then either the Stones or the Beatles, certantly in the earlier material. Ironically they were the least popular. But all three get credit from me for being innovative ,creating a "new sound", and changing the dirrection of music as we know it. As far as muscianship the scarry thing is all three are far better then most of the pop bands today. Plus one on Charlie watts, a great and very "soulful" drummer, Mr. Entwistle was a pretty creative bass player too! I use to call the Stones a garage band, but with todays new "Garage Bands" (ecspecially arround Detroit), that is a total insult , because at least they had some taste and the ability to realize space and groves can be your friend.
  13. Adam Barkley

    Adam Barkley Mayday!

    Aug 26, 2003
    Jackson, MS
    The Band
    King Crimson
  14. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    In my youth, I would say Cream was better than all of 'em. ;) What I missed was the end product being better than the individual(s)...or sumthin like that.
    (I would still say Cream could stretch out more in a Live setting vs. either The Beatles or Stones).
    Agree 100%.
    As far as comparing The Stones to others-
    The Pretty Things & The Faces would be a closer.
  15. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    Me, too...though I was uterrly amazed at how bad the Stones sounded on those 2 DVDs I mentioned.
  16. olesne


    Mar 25, 2005
    If I had to live in a world w/out the Stones or the Beatles?
    Bye bye Beatles...... :bassist:

    "Snake Pliskon?...............Man I thought you was dead."
  17. Munjibunga

    Munjibunga Total Hyper-Elite Member Gold Supporting Member

    May 6, 2000
    San Diego (when not at Groom Lake)
    Independent Contractor to Bass San Diego
    The Beatles (John and Paul, at least) had a great talent for writing pop music that would sell well to the masses. As musicians, they were middling, except for Ringo ("the lucky one") who fairly sucked. As musicians, the Rolling Stones aren't much better. But popularity has little to do with musicianship. There are thousands and thousands of better musicians in cover bands around the world. The really good musicians are playing jazz these days. Cripe, even ol' Edward Van Halen is a better musician than any of those guys.
  18. andruca


    Mar 31, 2004
    Madrid (Spain)
    Shouldn't surprise me comming from Munji ;), but... that's a rather elitist assertion!!!

  19. nonsqtr

    nonsqtr The emperor has no clothes!

    Aug 29, 2003
    Burbank CA USA
    The Beatles (all of them, but especially McCartney and Lennon) were musical geniuses. Their special brand of genius, was composing stuff that was palatable to a huge audience at the time (call it "pop" if you will, although I don't care much for labels like that). Everyone like that, brings whatever talents they have into the equation. For instance, a lof of the Beatles' stuff was recorded into a 4-track deck with dynamic mics. That would be "unheard of" in today's world, that by itself demonstrates a considerable amount of musical genius (and engineering genius). The "arranging" that has to go into something like that, requires either a PhD in music, or an ear "par excellence" (or both).

    The Stones, on the other hand, were an entirely different type of band, with an entirely different outlook on life. Mick's energy on stage basically allowed people to ignore Keith's sucky guitar playing, and Bill's marginal bass playing. IMO the Stones "suck" live, I've seen them at least twenty times, and not once have they pulled off a "correct" musical performance. But, the genius of the Stones is, that it doesn't matter. There's enough going on in their show, so people tend not to notice the mistakes. Personally I like the Stones' early stuff, there's some killer blues in there, and some real genius with the lyrics.

    Bottom line, those are two "different" bands, and they can't really be compared. They both exhibit musical genius, in different kinds of ways. I look at the Beatles kind of in the "formula" space, they were geniuses at formulating palatable music. I look at the Stones kind of in the "performance" space, they were like the "actors" of the rock 'n' roll world (in much the same way that one could view elements of today's rap music that way, or Britney Spears, stuff like that).

    I like the Stones, and I like the Beatles too. I have both of their complete collections. :)

    MAJOR METAL HARVESTER OF SORROW Staff Member Supporting Member

    I allways felt the Beatles Musical talent and ability was very natural and just seemed to flow from them. :bassist: