Discussion in 'Music Corner' started by doc021, Sep 2, 2016.
What about Let it Bleed? Beggars?
Nice ref to 'Jig Saw Puzzle'!!!
They are among the greatest albums ever made. But, they are essentially collections of relatively straightforward songs, assembled without the intention of creating a “work of art”. There was no effort to tie the songs together thematically, to create mini-symphonies or to utilize unusual musical styles or structures. Gimme Shelter and You Can’t Always Get What You Want are among the greatest rock songs ever, and they may be hard to play, but structurally they are very simple - three major chords throughout verse and chorus. She Came in Through the Bathroom Window, on the other hand, changes entire keys four or five times, and is itself part of a larger medley of varied musical segments that are carefully structured and meant to be listened to as a whole.
I’m not making a subjective judgment about which is ‘better’, but they were very different approaches to the making of a contemporary rock album.
Only time will tell, I suppose. But I guess the key point, which goes to the original post in this thread, is that the Stones have definitely benefited by having stayed together for 50+ years. If they had broken up at the same time as the Beatles, I don’t think they would even be in the conversation.
no, because history would’ve judged them even more harshly as the beatles copycats they were
And if AC/DC are Stones copycats, then would that have made them indirect Beatles copycats as well?
So many grand questions to ponder.
Did someone just try to say that Exile On main Street had more filler then the White Album? You are kidding me?
Here is how it is with the Beatles and the Stones in Rock history. The Stones are the greatest rock and roll band ever but the Beatles are more than just a rock and roll band. You can like the Stones better than the Beatles ( like I do ) but I won't argue about which band deserves to be called the greatest. I have no problem with the Beatles being considered that in the Rock pecking order. The only act that really challenges the Beatles all things considered is Bob Dylan.
Whoa there spanky. Beave's gonna chime in on this........
You Obviously lean towards the Beatles. But just what IS 'Art'?
One can walk into the Sistine Chapel and just gape at the sheer awe of it all.
And then again go into a Jamaican studio while musicians are putting down incredible
Vibes, and just gape at the sheer awe of it all.
Both are Art. One you look at and admire (Abbey Road), the other sucks you into a personal experience with the Art itself. Can't get more personal than a date with Sister Morphine. But both are valid and very much Art.
But saying that the Beatles 'Art' is more 'Art' then the Stones is just FanBoy talk.
Sister Morphine, by itself, as a composition, is artistically miles ahead, using your words, of any song on Abbey Road.
Come Together, right now....over me....
How artistically amateurish lyrics for a band making such a higher degree of Art over a band like the Rolling Stones.
Throw Away All of your Rolling Stones Albums NOW!!
A way of life Baybaa!!!!!
Salaam Dunko for the Beaver!!
The Beatles never developed a live act after 66, the roof performance is one show. I'll take live Beatles in 66 over Stones that year. The 1st knowledge I have of the Stones doing longer shows (1 hour +) is Hyde park 69, and they were really bad there. By the time of Altamont the Stones had a somewhat honed long live show. So one could say the Stones were a better live band from 69 onward.
Greatest all time
1-The Beatles...... 3 Singers who at their best were better than Jagger at his best.
IMO both Lennon and Harrison were better guitar players than Keith Richards.
The Beatles far surpass the latter 3 bands in melodic content IMO.
2-The Stones......because of combined output over decades. I agree Voodoo Lounge is very good,
and most latter Stones albums are really good, but offer little to expand the bands musical vocabulary, which for me would be the knock there.
3-Led Zeppelin...... a better, more interesting band in the 70s than the Stones, with a smaller body of work, knocking them down to #3. This based on recorded output alone, live differences do nothing to change my opinion, both could be amazing or terrible.
4-The Who........ A few great albums(but I like every single one), and a lot of uneven output.
Often considered the greatest live band ever, or among them. The Stones never made a better album than Who's next..
I'm not sure you read my other posts......
Sticky fingers is in my ALL time fav top ten list, I absolutely love that album.....
Both it and Abbey Rd fall into the "arty" category......
IMHO Abbey Rd has the edge because of songs like I want you, because etc as they push boundaries..
Can't you hear me knocking and Moonlight mile also push boundaries, but one will be heard more in a 100 years...
Always amazes me how guitar players got chops together in the 60s and prior. They didn't have tablature back then, or youtube videos. The Beatles tell stories of riding a bus across town to learn a single chord. George learned that Perkins/Berry vocabulary on guitar from records and watching other players. A guy puts in a lot of work to write and nail the solo in "Till there was you" Great use of chords and single notes tying the solo together.
How did Clapton learn the pentatonic minor scale? Mostly all by ear they did it. The Beatles to this day used chords better than most everybody then and now.
You need to read YouTube comments.
Stones fans on there crap all over the Beatles.
The Stones 70s material is great but no better than the best of John, Paul and George's best solo 70s stuff.
I mean Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St. are 2 of the best albums ever but so are Plastic Ono Band and Imagine and those are Lennon all by himself.
So is Band On The Run and a bunch of Paul singles.
So is All Things Must Pass by George.
Maybe the Beatles needed to split up in order to create this additional great music due to burnout with each other, but it goes to show just how good they were and we can't help but assume had they taken time to chill and regroup (no pun intended) that they would have continued to create band masterpieces.
Had the Beatles toured in the 70s both The Stones and Zeppelin would have been looking up at them.
Only The Beatles can make the mighty Stones and Zeppelin secondary.
Those 30 minute Beatles concerts would have blown the Stones away? I think not.
Plastic Ono Band and Imagine aren't even better than some albums by the Who and The Kinks.
Neither Lennon or Harrison was better than Mick Taylor.
Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street are better than Who's Next.
Jagger was a better front man than any of the Beatles as was Plant and Daltrey even if they might not have been better singers.
You can't honestly think had they toured in the 70s they would have followed the same format as their mop top days.
They would have adjusted to the times having a longer tracklist and rehearsals.
And even if none of the solo Beatles albums are masterpieces to you, major music critics and publications disagree, they are still darn good without having the rest of the band to aid them.
This leads us to believe that good to really good albums by one artist would continue to be classics if they still were joined together.
But you know what???????
Both Abbey Road and sticky fingers make a GREAT back to back listen!
How come nobody's talking about Coldplay here?
Who's Next is at worst as good as SF and Exile IMO I mean it may be as epic as a band can get.
None of the Beatles were ever show men to be front men and none of that matters to the music.
But I think Daltrey, Plant and Jagger are all great singers on par with Lennon and McCartney.
Indeed they do and I have done so many times...
No one is talking about crapplay because they suck
I had this discussion with a Led Zeppelin fanatic once. He was saying that Zeppelin was the biggest band ever because they broke the Beatles box office records in the 1970s and that proved they were bigger than the Beatles or Stones. I first corrected him about the Stones actually being the one that broke the most box office records in the 70s and then explained that if the Beatles decided to tour in the 1970s ticket demand would be like nothing rock had seen that that point. The rock audience was a lot bigger in the 1970s then it was in the 1960s. When the Beatles toured in the 1960s they didn't have many older fans at all. If they toured in the 1970s they would have had older and younger fans.
From what I have seen it's almost always it's usually the other way around. There is something about the Stones that make people want to put them down. You can't go to a Beatles vs Stones without reading that Jagger and the Stones were always second team and that always killed them and they were jealous. That theory goes on all the time. I don't know where it comes from because I have never seen the Stones act jealous of the Beatles. I know Lennon made that claim but how would he know. I know that Jagger was trying to talk the Beatles into touring before they broke up which obviously would have overshadowed the Stones tour. Why would he do that if he was so jealous.
It's also weird how everyone uses the Beatles to try and knock the Stones because the Stones are considered seconds place. They don't use the Beatles to knock the Who, or the Kinks, or Led Zeppelin or 100s or other bands but they use it to knock the Stones who are higher then everyone else in rocks pecking order. It's weird.
I'm happy that The Beatles didn't have that showman up front as that dynamic is already hopelessly dated - almost cheesy - and getting more so by the decade. The Beatles set up is timeless and a blue print for future bands. XTC is one example.
Also some of you guys need to look at bands post 70's. A group like Radiohead has created music that is way beyond anything The Stones have ever done.
They knock what threatens them the most.
Separate names with a comma.