Stones v. Beatles breakup?

Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by doc021, Sep 2, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. spherical

    spherical Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    work of "art"?....how about music on vinyl?......how 'bout feeling?....'stead of "art".....no VS. here..both bands
     
  2. Kassonica

    Kassonica Forum Resident

    Abbey road has much feeling. Idk.
     
  3. spherical

    spherical Forum Resident

    Location:
    America
    yes..and let it bleed too....and sticky fingers too....and let it be too......
     
  4. Gill-man

    Gill-man Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Even as a live act they were going downhill. If Live Aid is any indication, even though it’s without Bonham, they would not have become #2 based on that.
     
  5. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    no its your personal preference - to which you are fully entitled
     
  6. Gill-man

    Gill-man Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    The “greatest rock” doesn’t have albums of inconsistent quality littered throughout. Their output is too mixed in quality to be the greatest. Even saying their best is top echelon material is very debatable.
     
  7. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    I never said it wasn't my opinion. So your opinion is that arty is always better?
     
  8. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    itsa kind of a moot point, the Beatles were such a part of the cultural fabric that an official permanent loss of any member after 1964 - even Ringo - would have likely ended the band. The Stones are a band like most any other who could afford to lose even a core member and carry on, and would then continue add and subtract to the band. Only the loss of Mick or Keef would be fatal to the band, and Keef's loss even then could be questionable as Mick was always the face of the band, just look at their logo.
     
  9. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    not if its a pile of crap no, the pre beatles break up arty albums are a testament to that.
     
  10. John Fell

    John Fell Forum Survivor

    Location:
    Undisclosed
    Personally, something like You're Gonna Miss Me by the 13th Floor Elevators is more exciting for me than anything the Beatles ever did. Your results may vary.
     
  11. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen "Live music is better!"

    Location:
    Canada
    Don't forget Charlie. Keith has said more than once, "No Charlie Watts, no Rolling Stones". Ronnie's the only 'expendable' Stone and quite frankly nowadays I would even have to wonder about that- since finally getting sober and considering Keith's health issues Ron does quite a bit of the heavy lifting onstage, if not in the studio. I think -and let's face it, one of these days we're gonna find out whether we want to or not (as much as I dread it)- but if anything happened to any of the four remaining Stones, that'd be all she wrote, probably.
     
  12. dave9199

    dave9199 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I agree with both sides of this. The White Album, to me, is like an art collage. Sgt Pepper and Revolver (my favorite) are more arty than any Stones album. The Stones never had that in them to the extent The Beatles did. But The Stones can rock in a way The Beatles never achieved. I could never see The Beatles being able to sound like The Stones did on Blue & Lonesome even if all four were alive. Only Lennon could reach down that deep and it still wouldn't sound like that. I love them both but The Stones don't feel like art to me. Jagger is the only influence there bringing that in if at all. The solo Beatles in the 70's was more pop than rock after the early 70's. The Beatles got lighter as they aged. The Stones got heavier or at least maintained a heaviness about them. Rarely are they pop.
     
  13. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    again personal choice and why not, but no Beatles probably no 13th floor elevators, their very existence changed the game and whilst we'll never know for sure, without the Beatles its is a distinct possibility the music scene could have gone on and on barely changed, even the stones were a covers band until loog oldham forced them to start writing, and that was because of the Beatles.
     
  14. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    it has been said of the Stones that Mick & Keef are the officers and the rest are the enlisted men. Charlie is interesting as he really is more of a Jazz man, he has often hinted that he has little time for what the stones do musically, but i agree they had been as close to finishing in recent years as they had ever been then Mick & Keef patched it up and they are getting their final deserved lap of honour around the track, so i agree now that if Charlie went that would probably be it, but i'm not sure that would have been the case in the 70's or 80's....
     
  15. dave9199

    dave9199 Forum Resident

    Location:
    Durham, NC
    I always felt when I listen to the first Nuggets box set that while yes, no Beatles, no (insert name here), but the garage scene to me says no Rolling Stones, no real garage scene like the 13th Floor Elevators. That box set sounds like bands trying to be The Stones rather than The Beatles because The Stones are within reach of someone just starting out on their instrument just like The Ramones compared to someone like the Talking Heads.
     
  16. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen "Live music is better!"

    Location:
    Canada
    Well, Keith has been repeating his "No Charlie, no Stones" mantra since at least the 1981 tour, so, that's been their mindset for a while now. That said, though, it didn't stop them from bringing in Steve Jordan or even Ron Wood to pinch hit for Charlie during his heroin period in the Dirty Work era.
     
    muffmasterh likes this.
  17. drbryant

    drbryant Senior Member

    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Well, that’s the key to the Stones, right? The fact is, there’s probably never been a better rock band than the Stones from 68-73. The Beatles as a band don’t even come close - they didn’t have the feel, the swing or the chops. “12 Bar Original” may be the worst blues recording ever by a major rock act. However, the Beatles did have the ambition to create the “rock album as art” and fortunately they had the creative vision and energy to pull it off - twice, with Pepper and Abbey Road. The problem is that they spawned a whole generation of pretentious imitators who didn’t have those skills (for every Dark Side of the Moon there’s are probably 1000 bad prof or “art-rock” album’s in the used bins. Certainly the Beatles as solo artists wouldn’t have been able to do it (and to their credit, they never tried).

    The Stones’ legacy is simple - post Beggars Banquet, just cut a bunch of tracks - no “concept”, no “mini symphonies”, no straying too far from the basics - pick the best 10, release an album, and go on tour. And be so good at it that for five decades, 25 studio albums, and numerous world tours, over three generations worldwide were wowed. That will be a powerful legacy when rock and roll is viewed as an ancient musical form, and I think that the Stones will be remembered as the greatest rock band of the era. The Beatles’ flame burned white hot, but it only lasted for a brief moment in time, and I think that will hurt them at the end of the day.

    So cheers to the Stones. They never made albums that were “works of art”, they just played rock and roll, and at their best, even when just jamming in the studio, it was as good as rock and roll ever was.

     
    ohnothimagen likes this.
  18. ohnothimagen

    ohnothimagen "Live music is better!"

    Location:
    Canada
    Preach it, Doctor!:cheers:
     
  19. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    i agree but what stones, the stones covers band or the stones that wrote their own songs, if the latter then it's back to the Beatles even if they did not know it.

    However many acts directly credit the Beatles for their very existence, and not always who you might think, Ozzy Osbourne for example and Sabbath on face value have little direct line from the Beatles.

    The Beatles themselves cited Elvis but really it was more the other 50's acts who were more important as they wrote as well , Jerry Lee, Little Richard, Buddy Holly, the Everlys and of course Chuck, the Stones spiritual daddy.
     
  20. Brewmeister

    Brewmeister Forum Resident

    Location:
    Baltimore
    Maybe among the general "rock fan" audience the Stones are viewed as #2, but among the "music geek" crowd, The Kinks and The Who are often viewed as better than the Stones.
    I think their could be a far claim that among music critics, magazine writers etc, The Kinks are the clear #2 choice after The Beatles.
     
  21. Gill-man

    Gill-man Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    Maybe in the hipster crowd they’re #2...
     
  22. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    i do not disagree with much you have said there, aside from that part, it was 7 years so it was not that brief and in any case it won't hurt them as it hasn't done yet and where that the case you would think that they would have been already forgotten but their star still burns bright. I suspect that when this period in time passes beyond living memory it will be the Beatles and what they creatled and their unprecedented cultural impact that will still be there.

    They were game changers and few can aspire to that.
     
  23. muffmasterh

    muffmasterh Forum Resident

    Location:
    East London U.K
    i think the Kinks are more interesting than the Stones but for many reasons i think the Stones are still secure at number two. There are a few others vying for the next spots, the Who, Floyd, Led Zep ( and even though all of those acts offered probably something extra that the Stones did not imho ) possibly before we even get to the Kinks but Ray Davies was/is still a very unique talent.
     
  24. Kassonica

    Kassonica Forum Resident

    Moonlight mile was heading well into arty country (in a great way) can't you hear me knocking was as well...
     
  25. Kassonica

    Kassonica Forum Resident

    it's interesting who would come in 3rd, for my money it's a tie between floyd and Zep...
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine