1. Please take 30 seconds to register your free account to remove most ads, post topics, make friends, earn reward points at our store, and more!  
    TalkBass.com has been uniting the low end since 1998.  Join us! :)

Who was played there instruments best Beatles or Rollingstones??

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by Martha01, Feb 16, 2003.

  1. Martha01


    Sep 20, 2002
    what do you say??
  2. moley


    Sep 5, 2002
    Hampshire, UK
    My vote goes to The Beatles.
  3. The stones. Keith Richards is exceptional. Fantastic rhythm section. The beatles wrote better songs and arranged better, though.
  4. Martha01


    Sep 20, 2002
    But are not the players in The Beatles underrated as instumentalists??

    I think that Ringo,George and Paul were great on their instruments but that Lennon lacked some skills but i think he played with his heart.
  5. Dave Castelo

    Dave Castelo

    Apr 19, 2000
    The Who
  6. lil_bass_boy

    lil_bass_boy Banned

    Oct 25, 2001
    Maryland, USA
    Shouldn't this belong in Misc. ?

    :meh: :meh:
  7. IMHO No
  8. I would definitely say the beatles. I would also say that you post way too much about them. Maybe its just me, but I think you might have a better BBS experience on a Beatles board. Just a thought.
  9. Why does this matter? they were both great bands..Why do people see music as a contest??..I don't think that way.......:spit:
  10. The Ramones and Nachos.

    Thank you and Good night!
  11. I agree with Andy, but as others have said....what does it matter? They were totally different bands, both in style of music played, and in attitude.
  12. dls59

    dls59 Supporting Member

    I wouldn't say Lennon wasn't skilled. He wasn't the best lead player in the world, but he was a very good rhythm and acoustic player. They were all decent on their respective instruments, and developed their skills over the years, but they weren't world-class instrumentalists nor vocalists.

    As said before, they were great songwriters, and their energy connected with people. (Having George Martin certainly didn't hurt.)
  13. Paul A

    Paul A

    Dec 13, 1999
    Hertfordshire U.K!
    Two very different bands, Two very different styles.
    Whats the point in comparison???
    Someone trying to start another flame war or something?
  14. To me, we are talking about apples and oranges. I like both.

    Some observations: Early on, prior to their ban on playing live..say circa 63 or 64, the Beatles were fabulously tight as a group. You can see this now on all the footage that has been released in the past 10 years of them playing live.

    Also, the QUALITY of their musicianship can been heard on the Anthology series on the tune "Yes It Is." On that recording, there is a splice between John's first track laying it down as a demo, and their work a mere 5 or 6 hours later....the recording that made it on vinyl. MUSICIANSHIP!

    To me, the Stones peaked in the early 70's as musicians. All of Richards retunings that ended up on Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street (which WAS the last GREAT Stones album) brought mainstream rock players back to the early blues roots. (Robert Johnson played MANY of his tunes in open E or D major.) Since then, there have been flashes of brilliance, but not much.

    Wyman with Watts and Richard could get into a groove live that was an essence of R&R, but I wonder how hard they have had to push themseleves in the past 25 years.

    Of course, the comparison is also unfair since the Stones are still together and have played together for close to four decades now - with lineup changes.

    There were several other groups back in that era who to me were a lot tighter stage bands and instrumentalists. Yes, the Who, and The Moody Blues come to mind.
  15. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    The Stones could not have done "Abbey Road", and the Beatle couldn't have made "Exile on Main St".

    It's like asking: Which hand do you like best for playing bass?

Share This Page