Jump to content

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones


broneck

The Beatles vs. The Stones  

159 members have voted

  1. 1. The Beatles vs. The Stones

    • The Beatles (John and Paul)
    • The Stones (Mick and Keith)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 249
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

on the rare occasion i get stoned, i listen to that rush song about the manhattan project. it is fucking hysterical and they are so earnest, it's hard not to laugh.

how about duran duran vs. depeche mode? has anyone done the cure vs. the smiths?

depeche mode even though the lyrics are sometimes laughably bad.

"people are people so why should it be

you and i should get along so awfully"

oh....dear.

but they're a very influential band in modern rock

and cure vs. smiths is genuinely a tough one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

depeche mode even though the lyrics are sometimes laughably bad.

"people are people so why should it be

you and i should get along so awfully"

oh....dear.

but they're a very influential band in modern rock

and cure vs. smiths is genuinely a tough one

Listening to Johnny Cash cover "Personal Jesus" made me cringe with embarrassment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

though i should be, i am not ashamed to admit i've seen depeche mode 26 times, was president of the fan club for a short time and was in a DM cover band for 4 years.

i fucking hate that people always correlate duran duran with being some seminal new wave band while dm has sold 75 million records. no bias here.

Listening to Johnny Cash cover "Personal Jesus" made me cringe with embarrassment.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"words are very unnecessary, they can only do harm"

what? yeah if you are the one using them...

i mean what a dumb thing to say, but gosh it rhymes so well....

sorry we are off topic.

Paul would kick Jagger's skinny ass. Assuming he gave up the whole non-violence / peace thing...

EDIT - oh shit....sorry kunk. i made a joke a dm's expense. i love em. honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's ok. blasphemous rumours has classically dreadful lyrics, as does anything on the first 3 albums:

Leave In Silence

"If I only had a potion or some magical lotion, i could stop this, i could set the wheels in motion."

huh?

"words are very unnecessary, they can only do harm"

what? yeah if you are the one using them...

i mean what a dumb thing to say, but gosh it rhymes so well....

sorry we are off topic.

Paul would kick Jagger's skinny ass. Assuming he gave up the whole non-violence / peace thing...

EDIT - oh shit....sorry kunk. i made a joke a dm's expense. i love em. honest

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just saying what CJBreed beat me to:

I’d rather listen to the Stones. They are perfect at what they do, and they do it with attitude to spare. The Beatles, however, are the more important band. More original/artistic. The Beatles invented Pop Music. The Stones just mined their record collections.

It’s a shame Paul grew up to be a flabby twit. I, for one, am glad we never got the Great John Lennon Comeback Tour, tabloid divorce or Super Bowl appearance.

Oh, also, John, even strung out, would kick the holy shit out of Mick. John was a poor, orphaned street-fighting thug. Straight-up Swinging-'60s Gangsta.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lou Reed's solo career was adventurous but ultimately unremarkable. Bowie, on the other hand, made numerous canonical records. (John Cale's solo career is better than Lou Reed's, I think, and the best stuff either of them did was in collaboration with each other.)

Also, Bowie collaborated with numerous super important musicians, like Iggy Pop, Brian Eno, and Mott the Hoople. He was everywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, i can appreciate/respect without truly enjoying, i.e., sonic youth.

i'm a hopeless case as I literally only listen to like 10-12 bands/artists. I have about 150 albums while my wife prolly has 1750 or so.

kunk - well...there is no depeche mode without joy division. there is no joy division without velvet underground.

every independent, underground band (regardless of genre) was launched by velvet underground

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lou Reed's solo career was adventurous but ultimately unremarkable. Bowie, on the other hand, made numerous canonical records. (John Cale's solo career is better than Lou Reed's, I think, and the best stuff either of them did was in collaboration with each other.)

Also, Bowie collaborated with numerous super important musicians, like Iggy Pop, Brian Eno, and Mott the Hoople. He was everywhere.

true. and it could be argued that reed was imitating bowie at some points in his career. (transformer was co-produced by bowie) and reed is darker for sure. but c'mon, his solo career wasn't bad: "walk on the wild side" "dirty blvd"??? shiiit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm a hopeless case as I literally only listen to like 10-12 bands/artists. I have about 150 albums while my wife prolly has 1750 or so.

Generally I'm more impressed with small record collections than large ones. It requires much better taste to put together 150 great albums than 1,750 albums. That just takes money.

But back to the topic: Bowie is better. He also did his fair share of altering and influencing the pop-culture landscape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

true. and it could be argued that reed was imitating bowie at some points in his career. (transformer was co-produced by bowie) and reed is darker for sure. but c'mon, his solo career wasn't bad: "walk on the wild side" "dirty blvd"??? shiiit

Sure, Lou Reed has some awesome solo stuff--"Satellite of Love," Berlin (actually like this! [kind of]), etc.--but none of it even comes close to Bowie's best stuff, like Ziggy Stardust, Low, "Heroes," etc. Even love the second-tier Bowie stuff like Young Americans, Station to Station, Let's Dance, The Man Who Saved the World.... And throw in the fact that he wrote like nine songs on Lust for Life, and Jesus, you have one of the best musical careers in pop history.

Although I will echo the sentiment that everything "left of the dial" basically stemmed from The Velvet Underground. I think that The Beatles are the most influential act in pop-music history with The Velvet Underground second behind them. (Dylan is probably third.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to the topic: Bowie is better. He also did his fair share of altering and influencing the pop-culture landscape.

oh way more than his share. he's incredible.

i love reed and bowie and it is impossible to choose between the two, but i like to hear what people have to say

oh yeah and he collaborated with mick jagger

and tina turner

and stevie ray vaughan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...