Jump to content

Beatles or Stones?


Stripperg-ram

Beatles or Stones?  

44 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, Parsnip said:

Yeah Jimi Hendrix was basically the Justin Timberlake of the 60's.

He was the prototype of every pub dad guitarist playing endless, aimless pentatonic solos over three chords since. 

Thanks, Jimi!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

As a performer, Morrison was venturing further than anyone had gone before. Robbie Krieger’s guitar playing is in a different league, combining and developing styles from flamenco to bottle neck, Manzarak was a far more accomplished musician, and Densmore certainly pips Ringo. 

And Morrison got his dick out, so winner. 

The organ solo in Light My Fire is one of my favourite things ever. Which reminds me, I haven't listened to Doors for ages. Problem with having most music on ipod but latest stuff on spotify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

As a performer, Morrison was venturing further than anyone had gone before. Robbie Krieger’s guitar playing is in a different league, combining and developing styles from flamenco to bottle neck, Manzarak was a far more accomplished musician, and Densmore certainly pips Ringo. 

And Morrison got his dick out, so winner. 

You had me at ‘got his dick out’. So yeah, I concede. 

Manzarak was great....but as a band....?

Its just not the same league

Cream, individually are better than the Beatles. So are the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Heck, so are Rush, Yes and Kiss - if we’re gonna compare musicianship in Bands - then we could be here all night. 

But it’s all about  being bigger than the sum of its parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Stripperg-ram said:

it’s all about  being bigger than the sum of its parts

Yes, I get that, but I’d say that was very much the case for the Stones too. The chemistry between Keef n Mick is pretty special. 

It works in reverse too though; the Beatles, individually, produced nothing of note, and were a spent force by the end of the sixties. They rode a wave of popularity which, as I suggested, was largely fuelled by fortuitous timing. 

By contrast, the Stones are still awesome fifty years later, and continued to produce great music long after their hay day. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PistoldPete2
9 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Yes, I get that, but I’d say that was very much the case for the Stones too. The chemistry between Keef n Mick is pretty special. 

It works in reverse too though; the Beatles, individually, produced nothing of note, and were a spent force by the end of the sixties. They rode a wave of popularity which, as I suggested, was largely fuelled by fortuitous timing. 

By contrast, the Stones are still awesome fifty years later, and continued to produce great music long after their hay day. 

The Stones have stayed together so can still perform on tour. But they havent created anything of note for over 40 years. I think the All things Must pass album by Harrison was a magnum opus  and some of Lennons most famous work was as a solo artist. Creative juices can run dry and the Beatles were certainly better together than on their own.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PistoldPete2 said:

The Stones have stayed together so can still perform on tour. But they havent created anything of note for over 40 years. I think the All things Must pass album by Harrison was a magnum opus  and some of Lennons most famous work was as a solo artist. Creative juices can run dry and the Beatles were certainly better together than on their own.  

 

What this guy said☝️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me personally, the most significant English band to come out of the 60s was Pink Floyd. They broke out of the three minute format, and redefined what popular music could be and mean. I spent most of my teens tripping out to Meddle, WYWH etc. 

I’d also place the Beatles and the Stones way below people like Bowie or Zappa for sheer creativity. Each to their own, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was such a huge array of talent that came out of the sixties that it is really a daft question. Both groups were brilliant and their music to this day lives on and will continue to do so for many many years to come. If you don't like all of the Beatles, Stones, Led Zep, Floyd, Dylan, Hendrix, Who, Troggs, Cream etc. You have no taste whatsover. 

Now Twinkle, she was tripe bless her.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoetheRam said:

Didn't realise music was a competition.

Stones are cooler I guess, Beatles have more good songs, both released a hell of a lot of filler.

I like this attitude.

There's no such thing as good or bad music, just music you like and music you don't. 

There's no such thing as new music either, just music you've heard or music you haven't. 

It's such a thrill finding a new song or artist you enjoy, and it doesn't matter when that music was first released, whether 50 years ago or now, the thrill is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst I like both, just like the Beatles more, a wider variety of music in their later albums. Bought Abbey Road in 1972, was about the third album I ever bought up to then. Just loved the continuous track on second side. Some horrors though on side 1. Octopuses' Garden, grooh. Maxwell's Silver Hammer, groan. Rescued by Come together.

I also do own Exile on Main Street, it's good but cannot rate it higher than Revolver, Pepper, White Album or Abbey Road.

and I don't think the Stones have had a good album since "Some Girls".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Olaf Penge said:

and I don't think the Stones have had a good album since "Some Girls".

...… And the preacher said, you know you always have the Lord by your side  
And I was so pleased to be informed of this that I ran  
Twenty red lights in his honor  
Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord 

 

that cost me three points and an endorsement in 1981 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beatles for me - even had the haircut at the time and was called 'Beatle' by some. Did grow to like the 'Stones' more and more as I got older though.

Don't ask me if I was a mod or rocker though, as I was whichever stopped me being beaten up at any point in time. Don't know if that's cowardice or sensible self preservation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...