The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[cjbreed]

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.)

who is fourth? Ramones?

[broneck]

A friend of mine said that those were the number-one and number-two male vocalists in pop-music history, respectively.

I'd buy that. freddy mercury is unparallelled as a vocalist, bowie as a character.

[cjbreed]

funny, i was considering doing a followup to this that was freddy mercury vs. david bowie

for me that is bowie. no contest

[kunk75]

totally agreed. but fuck that, bruce dickinson > than all.

[jeepster]

I can't compare the two, the both branched off in different ways from their initially sound and then came back to something so similar at their peak powers ('68), that the comparison for me doesn't hold much sway in my liking of either.

I like both, and I'm sticking to that.

[landho]

who is fourth? Ramones?

I think The Ramones come from The Velvet Underground tree, no? (I think punk rock ultimately stems from The Velvet Underground, although The Ramones had a lot of surf rock and girl-group pop in them.)

As for fourth--off the top of my head, I would say either Barry Gordy/Motown or James Brown. James Brown (whether or not he "invented" funk) basically begot disco, hip-hop, and everything that came from those. Plus he had a crazy career in which he was one of the towering figures in two musical genres (soul and funk).

So probably James Brown!

[jeepster]

fuck. Rock n roll comes from magical rainbows spouted out of chuck berry's dick.

[timber]

here's one

lou reed (including velvet underground) vs. david bowie

aw man.

I'm going to say David Bowie but I do love Lou Reed so much.

[gramps]

The Rolling Stones played faster, louder, had more sex, did more drugs, knew more black people, showed their dicks more, never got into horseshit spirituality dross, weren't pot-addled communists, kept the annoying eastern music influences to a minimum, had people die at their shows, fucked fifteen-year olds, wrote songs about fucking those fifteen-year olds, managed to sound better than actual black bluesmen, recognized that the locus of great rock n roll is in America, possibly fucked David Bowie, didn't marry boring shrews, wrote radder lyrics, have been followed around by more interesting people, were almost a bit punk sometimes, got caught with heroin with the wife of our most famous prime minister (Canada represent), are not covered by Jack Johnson, repreat are not covered by Jack Johnson, and were just generally way more rock n roll than the Beatles.

And why would anyone shit on Led Zepplin? What, do you guys hate balloons and water parks and ice cream too? Please, respite from the abstract atonal electro ambient runway music.

[onemancult]

Another thing to consider is that, forty years later, people are still trying to do what George Martin did in the studio. Authentic Beatles-era recording equipment goes for a premium.

Also, a few solo Beatles works are bona fide masterpieces. Nothing worth shit from solo Stones.

george martin was great. the beatles are fucking wonks. one good album, Revolver.

thats it. seriously.

stones all the way.

[andrewsienk]

YUSUF ISLAM

The Beatles ofcourse...

[broneck]

The Rolling Stones played faster, louder, had more sex, did more drugs, knew more black people, showed their dicks more, never got into horseshit spirituality dross, weren't pot-addled communists, kept the annoying eastern music influences to a minimum, had people die at their shows, fucked fifteen-year olds, wrote songs about fucking those fifteen-year olds, managed to sound better than actual black bluesmen, recognized that the locus of great rock n roll is in America, possibly fucked David Bowie, didn't marry boring shrews, wrote radder lyrics, have been followed around by more interesting people, were almost a bit punk sometimes, got caught with heroin with the wife of our most famous prime minister (Canada represent), are not covered by Jack Johnson, repreat are not covered by Jack Johnson, and were just generally way more rock n roll than the Beatles.

And why would anyone shit on Led Zepplin? What, do you guys hate balloons and water parks and ice cream too? Please, respite from the abstract atonal electro ambient runway music.

I really can't fuck with any of the arguments presented here.

[jeepster]

No one can touch Beggars Banquet. In my eyes that is the best Stones album, hands down.

Their Satanic Majesties Request was awful though.

EDIT for gramps: see above comment and thankfully they kicked the sitars after Brian Jones kicked it as well.

[landho]

No one can touch Beggars Banquet. In my eyes that is the best Stones album, hands down.

Their Satanic Majesties Request was awful though.

EDIT for gramps: see above comment and thankfully they kicked the sitars after Brian Jones kicked it as well.

Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed were both better than Beggars Banquet.

Took me several years and many tries, but Their Satanic Majesties Request finally grew on me.

[jeepster]

Sticky Fingers and Let It Bleed were both better than Beggars Banquet.

Took me several years and many tries, but Their Satanic Majesties Request finally grew on me.

see, I don't feel that way about those two. Beggars for me sums up all I want the Stones to be and those two only have 1/2 as many great tunes (and they do have some great tunes, i.e. Gimmi Shelter, etc.), while Beggars from start to finish keeps me completely enamored. Personal preference I guess, but it only helps to prove that Stones '68-71 were at the peak of their powers.

EDIT: Satanic Majesties proves that taking lots and lots of LSD does not benefit some bands. Stick to heroin and the blues.

[landho]

see, I don't feel that way about those two. Beggars for me sums up all I want the Stones to be and those two only have 1/2 as many great tunes (and they do have some great tunes, i.e. Gimmi Shelter, etc.), while Beggars from start to finish keeps me completely enamored. Personal preference I guess, but it only helps to prove that Stones '68-71 were at the peak of their powers.

The first time I heard "Dear Doctor," I thought it was a joke! Had to make sure I had the right album. Eventually grew on me, too.

EDIT: Yeah, Majesties doesn't add much to the canon, but actually really like "2000 Man" and "She's a Rainbow." Album is super inconsistent, though.

[cjbreed]

The Rolling Stones played faster, louder, had more sex, did more drugs, knew more black people, showed their dicks more, never got into horseshit spirituality dross, weren't pot-addled communists, kept the annoying eastern music influences to a minimum, had people die at their shows, fucked fifteen-year olds, wrote songs about fucking those fifteen-year olds, managed to sound better than actual black bluesmen, recognized that the locus of great rock n roll is in America, possibly fucked David Bowie, didn't marry boring shrews, wrote radder lyrics, have been followed around by more interesting people, were almost a bit punk sometimes, got caught with heroin with the wife of our most famous prime minister (Canada represent), are not covered by Jack Johnson, repreat are not covered by Jack Johnson, and were just generally way more rock n roll than the Beatles.

And why would anyone shit on Led Zepplin? What, do you guys hate balloons and water parks and ice cream too? Please, respite from the abstract atonal electro ambient runway music.

the stones were way more rock n roll, but that doesn't make them a better band.

and u can't fuck with led zeppelin. i mean, gimme a break.

[gramps]

True say I suppose, but I've always basically thought, and I suppose this is pretty much personal taste so not terribly fair, that the faster and the louder and the scuzzier win the day. Which is why I would but a plethora of bands before the Beatles: The Ramones, The Clash (first album in par-ti-cu-lar), the Sonics, Velvet Underground, Modern Lovers, so on and so forth. I personally just can't really deal with the affectations of the Beatles. At least the Stones just sounded like hilarious addicts when they did their "sittin' in a bar in Jackson" shtick. The Beatles always just sort of came off as way too self-serious, or sort of way too silly.

And yeah, Beggar's Banquet can be a little much to take at first but it just has such jams on there. Stray Cat Blues is one of my favorite Stones songs.

[jeepster]

Stones for me embodied a free-er sense of British music at the time. Beatles established the mold for British bands to follow. I like them both equal, but they each have their place and modern music wouldn't really exist without either.

In respect to the Sonics, Clash, Ramones, VU, and Modern Lovers, they all essentially were drawing influence from black music at the base of things, like the Stones and Beatles, they just chose to take their own versions in different directions. All are important and serve their own purpose in musical history, and I enjoy all of them.

[landho]

Unsure whether you can say a lot of the early VU stuff came from black music per se.... It seemed to come out of a vacuum almost.

[jeepster]

Unsure whether you can say a lot of the early VU stuff came from black music per se.... It seemed to come out of a vacuum almost.

hardly. If you listen to early VU recordings, many of the tracks that are so experimental and different come from a more bluesy, drawn out place. Lou Reed has said before that his songwriting after the first two VU albums was a reflection more of his playing before the first two albums. "Do the Ostrich" sounds like a sped up and fuzzed out blues vamp. It predates what the Black Keys and White Stripes did by 30 years.

Also; remember that they found that acetate of the original demos for VU & Nico? Most reviews of it indicated that bluesy, vampy, slowed down and less experimental tone that I'm referring too.

VU takes a large portion of its influence from blues and black music, but took it to an extreme and then had the outside force of an artist exerted on it as well as the inner presence of an experimental yet classically trained musician affecting the songwriting.

[landho]

Sure, Lou Reed grew up listening to doo-wop and rock and roll, but (as you mentioned) John Cale was a classically train avant-gardist. The music he made with La Monte Young, John Cage, and Tony Conrad (among others) is as far from black music as you can get. It was a lot of droning and noise. And Cale was probably the most important member of the VU at first; in fact, it was his pervasive influence that led Lou Reed to drive Cale from the band.

Whatever the original Sceptre acetates sounded like, the final product does not sound bluesy or rock at all. I think the first VU record sounds more like CAN does it does like the Stones.

[ExileOnMainSt]

Stones best album was Let it Bleed, Exile On Main Street had too many of the same type songs, although evading britsh tax laws on the french riveria with your face buried in a half pound of coke was pretty badass of them.

I listen to Sgt. Pepper alot when I'm faded, and I'll hear some shit like:

Follow her down to a bridge by a fountain

Where rocking horse people eat marshmallow pies,

Everyone smiles as you drift past the flowers,

That grow so incredibly high

and i think god damn these guys were baked as fuck when they wrote that ..

[cloudhands69]

The Rolling Stones played faster, louder, had more sex, did more drugs, knew more black people, showed their dicks more, never got into horseshit spirituality dross, weren't pot-addled communists, kept the annoying eastern music influences to a minimum, had people die at their shows, fucked fifteen-year olds, wrote songs about fucking those fifteen-year olds, managed to sound better than actual black bluesmen, recognized that the locus of great rock n roll is in America, possibly fucked David Bowie, didn't marry boring shrews, wrote radder lyrics, have been followed around by more interesting people, were almost a bit punk sometimes, got caught with heroin with the wife of our most famous prime minister (Canada represent), are not covered by Jack Johnson, repreat are not covered by Jack Johnson, and were just generally way more rock n roll than the Beatles.

And why would anyone shit on Led Zepplin? What, do you guys hate balloons and water parks and ice cream too? Please, respite from the abstract atonal electro ambient runway music.

Fucking-a right! Love the Stones. Beatles are definitely more influential but I voted for the Stones. So damn good.

Also, I love VU but most of Lou's solo stuff is shit. Transformer and Rock'n'roll Animal are the only Lou Reed albums I liked. To me it's hard to compare Lou Reed with David Bowie because I like the VU albums so much but his solo albums so much less.

Also, Smiths over Cure though I really don't know too much of the Cure's older stuff and what I've heard is so good and fucking punk!

Depeche Mode, fuck a Duran.

edit: Neil Young vs. Bob Dylan?

[the_state]

beatles is childrens music. stones have a bunch of rubbish in their catalogue, but i'll be damned if they don't have some rough hell, sexed up, drugged up, blues, cowboy'd up classics.

[jeepster]

Sure, Lou Reed grew up listening to doo-wop and rock and roll, but (as you mentioned) John Cale was a classically train avant-gardist. The music he made with La Monte Young, John Cage, and Tony Conrad (among others) is as far from black music as you can get. It was a lot of droning and noise. And Cale was probably the most important member of the VU at first; in fact, it was his pervasive influence that led Lou Reed to drive Cale from the band.

Whatever the original Sceptre acetates sounded like, the final product does not sound bluesy or rock at all. I think the first VU record sounds more like CAN does it does like the Stones.

I'm not saying what you're saying is incorrect, what I'm saying is, despite Cale's pervasive influence on the first two records, most of the songs that are explicit Lou Reed songs from those VU records are based off of a back history of black music. Cale was a completely separate entity within the VU as far as I'm concerned, and while their songs when they came together both have distinctive parts and influences, you have to look at them both as separate songwriters.

edit: cloudhands, lets leave Bob Dylan alone. I'm so sick of talking about Bob Dylan.

[dolly]

totally agreed. but fuck that, bruce dickinson > than all.

i saw maiden live two years ago, and he was just this ridiculous ball of energy. he went non-stop for probably about two hours.

oh also, back to the debate here...my dad always makes the point that when you hear a beatles song, it's so sooo dated compared to the stones' sound. that's not necessarily a bad thing by any means, but when you hear a great stones song blasted loud at a party it's pretty much unstoppable.

[operationjake]

i'd go with the beatles prob cause hey did more for music than the rolling stones did (or are still trying to do), in my opinion.

not to mention, the beatles wrote at least one song for the stones...... yeah.... condescending? heh.

BUT... if this was like richards vs. lennon/mccartney, i think richards takes the cake for sure. anyone who can do what he did over 60+ years and STILL LIVE, not to mention say "i snorted pops!!! wait... shit, i shouldn't have said that. uhh... just kidding everybody!" is fucking dope.

[mpcec]

woooooke up this mornin', singing an old beatles song...

[zenii]

The stones for sure. Beatles have good songs but stones are better by far.