Drowned in Sound

Search



Rolling Stones...

no votes
?
by Jesusandhislawyer
Let's face it, they are better than The Beatles. Now I can hear you Teenage Fanclub lovers screaming, but if you take the top 5 stones songs, and best stones album, best stones live show and add together how fucking cool they are. They beat The Beatles. The Stones are visceral, dark, sexy, cool, danceable, stunning. The Beatles may have been more influential or whatver. But let's put 'Yesterday' up against 'Gimme Shelter' and I think we can see that there isn't much of an argument. The Beatles took all the black of their music and all the wore the same gear, the stones kept in in and were the first band to look different. They had better lyrics too, compare 'Sympathy For The Devil' to some twee Paul McCartney shit. Keith Richard was a better guitar player than any of them, Charlie Watts a better drumer and Jagger was a better frontman. Stones are just, better.
Jesusandhislawyer | 18 Oct '05, 18:31 | Send note | Report this | Reply

Re: Rolling Stones...

Fair enough, Yesterday is fucking shit. But the Stones never wrote a song better than 'A day in the life', 'Eleanor Rigby', 'I am the Walrus'... I could go on.

The difference is, the Stones may have a lot of good stuff, but the Beatles have twice as much. Also, the Stones have twice as much wank.

Re: Rolling Stones...

No, 'Tumblin' Dice', 'Street Fighting Man', 'Jumpin' Jack Flash' 'Gimme Shelter' and most of the stones best stuff is better than those three. Fair enough the stones have more wank than an all boys boarding school but it's better than some of McCartney's more recent stuff.

Re: Rolling Stones...

I reckon screwdrivers are better than lightbulbs. Sod the Beatles versus Stones, this is the discussion we should be having.

Re: Rolling Stones...

I like both but The Beatles were the more creative band. Go and read up on them and you'll find the Stones were crapping themselves because they had about twenty songs while The Beatles had about 400. The Beatles offered them some of the material they weren't using to help them along. The Stones found a formula that worked and stuck to it, The Beatles were changing all the time. Bit of a daft comparison as they're both completely different types of bands.

Re: Rolling Stones...

The Beatles were the more creative band, but I prefer the Stones nonetheless. Pre-Some Girls, the Stones define "rock 'n roll".

Re: Rolling Stones...

Beatles versus Stones is a boring debate. Who cares, all they are is 'best sixties acts your Aunty remembers, and she only knows them, Cliff and Rod Stewart'

There are a lot of interesting sixties bands other than them out there...it's worth a dig.

"stones kept in in and were the first band to look different."

What about the Pretty Things then?...just because everyones heard of the Stones, doesn't automatically mean they are the innovator and everyone else came after...Screaming Lord Sutch and the Savages looked pretty different too...and their first single came out in '61...

No disrespect to the Beatles and Stones (I'm trying hard here...) but just think of them as U2 and REM of their day. Some better, some worse, but none more written about.

Re: Rolling Stones...

do you reckon England will retain the World Cup? Alf Ramsey, what a manager. Harold Wilson, hmm not sure if he'll win the next election........

Re: Rolling Stones...

Essex!

Re: Rolling Stones...

I saw the Rolling Stones in concert in NC. They were amazing, and there was a bomb threat and it was very interesting. MOST AMAZING CONCERT EVER! but golly, they are looking older haha. I think the beatles and the Stones are different and i feel that is an unfair comparission. but i can see your standpoint

Carter

Re: Rolling Stones...

Fair enough, it's old news but the stones never get metioned on this site and yet eveyrone still namechecks the beatls in their profiles while the 'stones don't get a look in.

Re: Rolling Stones...

Fair enough, it's old news but the stones never get metioned on this site and yet eveyrone still namechecks the beatls in their profiles while the 'stones don't get a look in.

Re: Rolling Stones...

The Stones are to the Beatles as The Strokes are to Radiohead.

Read into that what you like.

Re: Rolling Stones...

I prefer the stones but I don't think you can compare the 2. They did very different things for music.

Re: Rolling Stones...

There's no point making a comparison, as lots of people have pointed out, but anyone on DiS who doesn't like the Stones should be shot. The four records from 'Beggars Banquet' to 'Exile on Main Street' inclusive are all essential in any self-respecting music lover's record collection.

Re: Rolling Stones...

i think the rolling stones kick ass.
they are really, really cool.
the beatles suck ass. well, in my opinion.

Re: Rolling Stones...

Cunt.

Re: Rolling Stones...

I prefer the Stones.

Under My Thumb is great.

Re: Rolling Stones...

Haven't heard enough but the Stones strike me as really quite boring and with somewhat less than brilliant lyrics...

Re: Rolling Stones...

boring debate.but sticky fingers was THE album that got me listening to rock music, and I will always love the stones

Re: Rolling Stones...

The beatles are better than the stones, who are still pretty good. That about sums it up.

Re: Rolling Stones...

I've never liked either band but if I had to choose one I liked, it'd be the Beatles.

They write decent original songs (even though they did result in the musical environment you before you know, Oasis, Killers etc). The Rolling Stones just badly used sub blues riffs and only had one, maybe two good songs...

Re: Rolling Stones...

Stones are more earthy and rockin' than the Fabs. I prefer the early Stones RnB stuff. They definitely had more energy and excitement than the Beatles who were a bit goody two-shoes. It's worth bearing in mind that in the early 60s, the Beatles were seen as a boy-band (thus Mods and other less-mainstream groups hated them), while the Stones were admired for reproducing a 'real' RnB sound. Course within a year, Mods hated the Stones cos they went all mainstream. But everyone knows that ultimately, the beatles are the more influential and creative of the two.

Re: Rolling Stones...

Does anybody else think that Jagger looks like he's melted?

Re: Rolling Stones...

The Beatles and the Stones
Sucked the marrow out of bone
Put the V in Vietnam
The Beatles and the Stones
Made it good to be alone
To be alone...

Re: Rolling Stones...

>round of applause<