| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Fox On The Rocks 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 10 2011
Location: Toronto, Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 5012
|
 Posted: August 06 2011 at 00:00 |
|
The Beatles by light years.
|
|
|
 |
The T
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 14:39 |
 himtroy wrote:
I'm not super into the Beatles but I despise the Rolling Stones. Has there ever been such generic music? In fact it's stuff like that that makes me so aggravated when people bi%$$ about how bad modern mainstream music is (and it is certainly), because there's always been recycled and unoriginal pop music blaring over the radio, repeating the same three chords endlessly. Though like I said, I'm not to into the Beatles either, nor am I into their overly blown impact on music. I hate pop music |
I totally agree with the description of The Rollings Stones. They have like 4 or 5 decen lt songs and a lot of generic ones. The Beatles were so much better, even though I don't love them as much as others do.
|
|
|
|
esky
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 12 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Points: 643
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 14:36 |
The Stones could be wonderfully proggy at times (in a dark way) while the Beatles seemed always cheerful in how they conducted themselves (with the exception of Strawberry Fields', 'Walrus, and Blue Jay Way, among a few others). Pete Townsend once remarked that he and many other Englishmen laughed at the Fabs when they first came on the scene, while the Stones appeared to be the real deal from the get go. I'll still go with Los Beatles.
|
|
EchidnasArf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 04 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 376
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 13:09 |
|
Not to go off topic here, but The Rolling Stones certainly were not
generic for their time. Modern pop rock is a derivative of stuff like
the Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, etc.. That's why you
think the Rolling Stones sound generic, but you've got it backwards.
|
|
|
|
himtroy
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 20 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 1601
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 12:47 |
|
I'm not super into the Beatles but I despise the Rolling Stones. Has there ever been such generic music? In fact it's stuff like that that makes me so aggravated when people bi%$$ about how bad modern mainstream music is (and it is certainly), because there's always been recycled and unoriginal pop music blaring over the radio, repeating the same three chords endlessly. Though like I said, I'm not to into the Beatles either, nor am I into their overly blown impact on music. I hate pop music
|
|
Which of you to gain me, tell, will risk uncertain pains of hell?
I will not forgive you if you will not take the chance.
|
|
Horizons
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: January 20 2011
Location: Somewhere Else
Status: Offline
Points: 16952
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 12:44 |
Rolling Stones.
The Beatles bore me now.
|
|
EchidnasArf
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 04 2011
Location: Austin, TX
Status: Offline
Points: 376
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 12:42 |
|
The Beatles! *in my best Cockney accent*
Yeah, hands down Beatles. I do like a lot of Stones though. The Satanic Majesties Request is a gem.
|
|
|
|
Guldbamsen
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: January 22 2009
Location: Magic Theatre
Status: Offline
Points: 23098
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 09:57 |
|
As much as I love John Lennon, I have to vote Stones here. Beatles made 4 maybe 5 albums I really love, whereas Stones made: 12x4, Out of Our Heads, Between The Buttons, Beggar´s Banquet, Let it Bleed, Exile on Main Street, Goats Head Soup, Sticky Fingers, It´s only Rock n´ Roll, Emotional Rescue and not to forget the live album Get Yer Ya Ya´s Out.
|
|
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
- Douglas Adams
|
|
TheClosing
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 11 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 527
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 02:28 |
|
"The Stones" all day, everyday.
|
|
kevin4peace
Forum Groupie
Joined: January 01 2011
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 98
|
Posted: August 05 2011 at 02:03 |
|
Any Beatles album would beat out even Hot Rocks for me. So The Fab Four all the way.
|
|
Nothing to say here. Nothing at all. Nothing is easy.
|
|
TODDLER
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: August 28 2009
Location: Vineland, N.J.
Status: Offline
Points: 3126
|
Posted: October 25 2010 at 08:03 |
|
The Beatles for there unique songwriting talents. Their influences of American music and Classical was naturally formulated into a very original way of writing songs. The Rolling Stones for a while did the exact same thing. "Ruby Tuesday" and just loads of songs that revealed progressive elements. "2000 Light Years From Home" and "The Lantern" are among my favorites. Very strange songs. I think that Keith Richards came up with some truly interesting acoustic style chord structures and he has a good ear. He may not be a fancy lead player but, he writes or wrote some pretty melodic and dreamy chord progressions. The Beatles however seemed to be more advanced than the Stones in the area of harmony. Harmony applied to instrumentation and vocals.
|
|
uduwudu
Forum Senior Member
Joined: July 17 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 2601
|
Posted: October 25 2010 at 00:34 |
Stones for being earlier than Beatles to do the symphonic prog thing. (As Tears Go By in '64) and the harpsichord for Play With Fire. Sort of like whose is their best prog guy Brian Jones or George Harrison? They both had psychedic albums in 67... Stones made greater rock... but Abbey Road is the most progressive album of both bands... Stones played concerts... performing live is a strong criteria IMHO. I know a good deciding factor. Vote for who decided King Crimson would make a good warm up band! 
|
|
ferush
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 26 2006
Location: Mexico
Status: Offline
Points: 363
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 20:30 |
|
Also As Tears Go By is a great Stone prog track.
|
|
Matthew T
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 01 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5291
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 15:57 |
|
Beatles of course but the polls from the sixties and seventies were usually neck and neck. Beatles won them though (radio phone polls)
|
|
Matt
|
|
Seruum
Forum Groupie
Joined: October 29 2009
Location: France
Status: Offline
Points: 81
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 15:37 |
The Beatles. Of course 
|
|
someone_else
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: May 02 2008
Location: Going Bananas
Status: Offline
Points: 24011
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 10:43 |
|
The Beatles by 2000 light years.
|
|
|
|
ten years after
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 07 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1008
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 06:04 |
Sticky Fingers was a better album than anything the Beatles (or almost anyone else) ever released.
Satanic Majesties was more Prog than anything the Beatles did and i think it is a better album than Sgt Pepper.
However, I prefer the Beatles overall output so they get my vote.
|
|
Svetonio
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 20 2010
Location: Serbia
Status: Offline
Points: 10213
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 05:52 |
|
Brian Jones era The Stones
|
|
Jazzywoman
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 16 2010
Location: Naperville, Ill
Status: Offline
Points: 312
|
Posted: October 24 2010 at 02:20 |
|
I personally dont like either of them, but The Beatles have slightly better music.
|
|
|
|
The_Jester
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 29 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 741
|
Posted: October 23 2010 at 15:02 |
|
The Beatles started the Rolling Stones but they really did better than they.
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
the beatles vs the rolling stones
