Lorraine Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Got to thinking this morning which band my TRFers think is/was the more talented - the Stones or the Beatles? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: :whipgirl: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
invisible airwave Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Beatles for studio, Stones for live. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RushFanForever Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 (edited) Mick Jagger's answer to the question beginning at the 2:30 mark is the same related one as invisible airwave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J73L2WRkd0U Edited November 25, 2020 by RushFanForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 beatles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Lorraine wants a Jake box exclusive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 25, 2020 Author Share Posted November 25, 2020 For those who chose the Stones, why do you think they are more talented? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 25, 2020 Author Share Posted November 25, 2020 Lorraine wants a Jake box exclusive!What are you talking about? Jake Lee? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Na na na Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 The Beatles 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom55 Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 These guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Lorraine wants a Jake box exclusive!What are you talking about? Jake Lee?No a jake box is a novel style of CD case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
custom55 Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 For those who chose the Stones, why do you think they are more talented? I grew up in a 60's household with an older sister that was really into music. She loved The Stones so I heard their music a lot. I started playing guitar because I heard "The Last Time". More talented ? Both bands are talented but which one gives you more goosebumps? For me it's The Stones. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zepphead Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 Both are classic bands but it would be the Beatles who just shade it for me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entre_Perpetuo Posted November 25, 2020 Share Posted November 25, 2020 The classic question, but a slightly different approach. Not which do I prefer, but which do I think is more talented...hm... It's a difficult question because, as similar as they often could be, they specialized in different things. The Beatles for example were insanely good at melody and harmony, so much that their songwriting style influenced basically everyone who came after them. The Stones, though not necessarily lacking in that more music theoryish context, were far superior blues players to anyone in the Beatles, and had quite a bit more groove as well. A lot of British invasion groups were trying to sound American, but The Stones are the only band that comes to mind who really pull it off. Both of them pushed the envelope of what rock music could be in the 60s, but The Beatles I think pushed it quite a bit further, the Stones' biggest experiment being considered one of their least classic albums. However even The Beatles went maybe a bit too far with Revolution 9. We could break it down by instrument... Drums: Charlie Watts > Ringo Starr (I love Ringo's work and his style, but the fact that Paul had to play some of the drum parts in the studio says a little much about his versatility, Watts has proven he can play a pretty wide variety of material over the years)Bass: Bill Wyman < Paul McCartney (Wyman is certainly more than competent and carries many classic Stones tunes, but Paul is just freakishly good, one of the best ever to play the instrument)Rhythm Guitar: John Lennon / Paul McCartney = Brian Jones / Mick Taylor / Ronnie Wood (These guys are all pretty equally great at what they do)Lead Guitar/multiple string instruments: George Harrison < Brian Jones / Keith Richards (George is excellent, but he was underutilized in the Beatles, The Stones gave their lead guitarists plenty of room to shine, which gives them the edge for me)Lead Vocals: Ringo < Keef < George < John < Paul = Mick (the Beatles have the Stones beat with quantity of lead singers, but their about matched in quality. When it comes down to it I don't think I can choose between Paul and Mick)Backup vocals: Beatles > Stones (the Stones often brought in guest backup singers to fill out their harmonies, sure as a stylistic choice it's justified, but it also says a bit about the voices they had on hand, The Beatles always had phenomenal harmonies)Songwriters: This might come the most down to preference. How can you argue one way or the other? Mick and Keith could never have written Something, George could never have written Hey Jude, Paul could never have written Lucy In The Sky, John just wouldn't have written Octopus' Garden, Ringo...bless him he never wrote much. He certainly couldn't have written Can't You Hear Me Knocking, or Midnight Rambler, or Beast Of Burden. How does that math add up? Overall it's pretty even...I guess that's why the debate still goes on, lol. I don't know who's more talented. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RushFanForever Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 (edited) Both are classic bands but it would be the Beatles who just shade it for me. George Harrison is the one who told Jimmy Page that Led Zeppelin should do more ballads. Jimmy went and wrote 'The Rain Song' in reply. Edited November 26, 2020 by RushFanForever 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 The Beatles have more colors in their paintbox. Both the Beatles and the Stones have the magic to make you think they are the greatest band ever when you are listening to them. I'm glad I have the choice. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Drums: Charlie Watts > Ringo Starr (I love Ringo's work and his style, but the fact that Paul had to play some of the drum parts in the studio says a little much about his versatility, Watts has proven he can play a pretty wide variety of material over the years) To be fair Paul only played drums when Ringo technically quit the band or wasn't available on short notice. What is it? Three songs? And when George Martin chose not to use Ringo on "Love Me Do". 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tangy Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 The Beatles. All of them made good to great records as solo artists 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 Both are classic bands but it would be the Beatles who just shade it for me. George Harrison is the one who told Jimmy Page that Led Zeppelin should do more ballads. Jimmy went and wrote 'The Rain Song' in reply.That's a beautiful song and one of my Led Zep favorites 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorraine Posted November 26, 2020 Author Share Posted November 26, 2020 I still don't know which one to choose. Growing up, I liked the Stones better always. Today, I'm not so sure I like the Stones better. Both bands are talented. When I was listening to You Can't Always Get What You Want last night, I can't help but think,how does anyone create a song like this? What talent must it take? I almost feel guilty voting in this one. No matter which one I vote for, I will feel bad. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReRushed Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 I still don't know which one to choose. Growing up, I liked the Stones better always. Today, I'm not so sure I like the Stones better. Both bands are talented. When I was listening to You Can't Always Get What You Want last night, I can't help but think,how does anyone create a song like this? What talent must it take? I almost feel guilty voting in this one. No matter which one I vote for, I will feel bad.Why? Both bands recorded great songs. Enjoy each band in the moment you are listening to them. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treeduck Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Drums: Charlie Watts > Ringo Starr (I love Ringo's work and his style, but the fact that Paul had to play some of the drum parts in the studio says a little much about his versatility, Watts has proven he can play a pretty wide variety of material over the years) To be fair Paul only played drums when Ringo technically quit the band or wasn't available on short notice. What is it? Three songs? And when George Martin chose not to use Ringo on "Love Me Do". I like the answer John gave when someone asked if Ringo was the best drummer in the world, he said: "He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles!" 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Beatles for studio, Stones for live. I think this says it all actually. Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio. I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!! I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSHHEAD666 Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 "STINKY FINGERS" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyBlaze Posted November 26, 2020 Share Posted November 26, 2020 Beatles for studio, Stones for live. I think this says it all actually. Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio. I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!! I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL! “Suck”? Man, come on. You can’t judge The Beatles live solely on audio and video recordings. Side, relevant note: Not sure if there are any current TRFers who’ve seen The Beatles in concert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now