Beatles Versus Rolling Stones

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Who is greater?

[Maine-ah]

1. Beatles.

[mikeytherat]

2. Musically or Stage Fight?

Musically I might lean Beatles, but Stage Fight would definitely go to The Stones.

mikey_the_rat

[LibraLiz1973]

35. rofl

:rofl:

[GoddessOfGuinness]

3. The Rutles

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. The Pre-Fab Four are gear!

Dirk, Nasty, Stig and Barry. :thumbsup:

[kay1864]

10. Holy cow! Did Eric Idle meet his future wife during the Rutles film?

Sure looks that way...

Tania Kosevich
Actress:
1. The Rutles: All You Need Is Cash (1978) (TV) .... German Streetwalker
... aka All You Need Is Cash (USA)

(her only credit)

Spouse
Eric Idle (1981 - present) 1 child

Eric Idle

Spouse
Tania Kosevich (1981 - present) 1 daughter
Lyn Ashley (7 July 1969 - 1978) (divorced) 1 child

[ironflange]

4. Beatles

Though since I've been listening to 60's on XM lately, I've grown to like the Stones a whole lot more than I used to.

[Deep13]

5. In 1966 it would have been a tough call.

In 1971, it was have been no contest. The Stones never really evolved while the Beatles were tremendous innovators.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

6. Stones.

[idgiehkt]

20. yes.

:toast:

[underpants]

7. O

a

sis

[SouthoftheBorderPaul]

9. Where's the Tommy Tutone option on this poll?

Will he never get his due? x(

[Hippo_Tron]

39. LMAO

[Crabby Appleton]

11. Are you a Mod or a Rocker?

[taterguy]

12. A mocker obviously

[begin_within]

13. Beatles for recordings, Stones for performances.

[Ishoutandscream2]

36. The correct answer

Beautiful and innovative records - the Beatles. But oh boy, just check out the video of the Stones on tour in 1972, and you'll never see a better live band. Absolutely fantastic.

[taterguy]

14. For fuck's sake, how many times do I have to repost Sartwell's Law

Read it and weep Beatles fans, face up to empirical facts

IT'S ONLY ROCK AND ROLL, AND I LIKE IT

By Crispin Sartwell

October 6, 1997

The Rolling Stones are the best band in the history of rock music. I submit that this can be proven with mathematical rigor and now propose to do so. Follow this closely.

Sartwell's First Law: The quality of a rock band is inversely proportional to its pretentiousness.

Corollary to Sartwell's First Law: The pretentiousness of a rock band can be expressed as a ratio of its artistic ambition to its artistic accomplishment. For example, on a scale of 1 to 10, the artistic ambition of the band Yes equals 9, its artistic accomplishment 1. This yields a pretentiousness ratio of 9:1, one of the very worst in rock history.

The evaluation of rock music is no longer an impressionistic expression of opinion, but rather a precise, quantitative science. Anyone who disagrees with me from now on is simply irrational.

Some quick applications: The Ramones (1:8) are better than the Talking Heads (7:7). Nirvana (3:9) is exactly as good as Pearl Jam (9:3) is bad. The worst music ever made (literally) is art rock: King Crimson (10:1), for example. Early U2 and early Springsteen, who took what were fundamentally fairly simple ditties and mounted them with an elaborateness usually reserved for Wagnerian opera, are almost unbelievably overrated.

And finally, the Rolling Stones are much better than the Beatles.

Now admittedly this Stones vs. Beatles thing is decades old. But it rages on.

Both the Stones and the Beatles started out as interpreters of rhythm and blues. They cleaned up African American music and sold it to the world, a tried and true commercial strategy for white folks throughout the century, from Benny Goodman to Elvis Presley to Vanilla Ice.

Which brings me to:

Sartwell's Second Law: The quality of a rock song varies inversely as the square of its distance from the blues. The bluesier the better.

The world's popular music is African American music because African American music is extremely intense and powerful. If you're playing music in a European tonal framework, you're not a rock band at all.

The history of rock is the continuation of the history of the blues, both in the way it is made and in the way it is received (by dancing in bars).

The two laws are connected: When was the last time you saw a pretentious blues band? Rock is a traditional, as opposed to an avant-garde, art form. The authenticity of a work of traditional art is measured by the way it venerates and explores the tradition. The authenticity of a work of avant-garde art is measured by the way it destroys or transcends the past. Avant-garde rockers have profoundly misunderstood their form.

Something awful happened to the Beatles about 30 years ago, something that happens to most young rock musicians who achieve extreme success: They mistook themselves for avant-garde artistes. They made, for example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, a truly bad album. They lost the blues and, to paraphrase Chuck Berry, started sounding like a symphony, a vapid symphony. They went baroque.

Now that was exactly what the Stones never did (though there was one scary moment: Their Satanic Majesties Request). They have remained, for much longer than anybody else, a knockdown, straight-ahead basic blues and rock band. Mick Jagger never mistook himself for Pavarotti or T.S. Eliot. Keith Richard never tried to do anything but make great little riffs.

Think about how hard this must have been: You can do anything you want, and instead of making a statement for the ages demonstrating what a profound puppy you really are, you just write another great, simple rock song: ``Beast of Burden,'' say, or ``Between a Rock and a Hard Place,'' or, from the excellent current disk, ``Flip the Switch.''

When Bach (10:10) made profound statements for the ages, they stuck. When Emerson, Lake and Palmer (10:1) made profound statements for the ages, they were dated before they were released. ``Twist and Shout'' and other early Beatles songs sound like they were recorded yesterday. But ``For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!'' sounds like the relic of an extinct, incomprehensible culture.

Everything the Stones have ever done, with the exception of some very early work recorded before they could sing and play competently, holds up beautifully: It's the rock of ages. Albums like The Rolling Stones, Now! (1964), It's Only Rock 'n Roll (1974), and Undercover (1983) sound perfectly fresh. There's a very simple reason for that: They are excellent examples of Sartwell's laws, completely unpretentious and always undergirded by the blues.

The accomplishment of the Stones never exceeds their grasp; they know exactly what they play well, and they just keep on playing it. Do that successfully for a year and, if you're lucky, you've got a good recording and a concert tour to show for it. Do it for 35 years, and you're the only rockers who ever have.

So there you have it: perfectly irrefragable proof that if you go see the Stones, you'll be seeing the greatest freaking rock band in history. Anybody got an extra ticket?

[LBJDemocrat]

15. I agree

The Stones kick ass.

The Beatles spent too much time trying to be clever, but their songs sound like cutesy, annoying shit. Eleanor Rigby? It's tuneless and vomit-worthy, just an exercise in fancy production.

[last_texas_dem]

16. Eleanor Rigby is "tuneless"?

[LBJDemocrat]

18. Sounds like shit

It's clownish circus music. I fucking hate it.

[last_texas_dem]

19. Sure, that's your opinion

As the rest of your post about the Beatles' music was, and it's not my place to tell you what you should or shouldn't like the sound of. I'm just disputing the factuality of calling the song "tuneless" just because you don't like it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. Hardly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gf-Q2rDd6Tw

[DemocratSinceBirth]

24. More Circus Music

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrNe1Ni9s7E&mode=related&search=

They were so fucking versatile...

That the same band could do "And I Love Her" and this...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. How Can The Same Band

How Can The Same Band Do This?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9KRpEkGfY&mode=related&search=


And This?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aChUwN5LBao

[LBJDemocrat]

27. A-hem

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P0NG4wcxEg

Stones rock harder. The Beatles are cutesy, pretentious pop music. The only song of theirs that I like is And Your Bird Can Song. The rest, I guess you have to be intoxicated to enjoy it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. "Stones rock harder"

I guess it's a matter of definition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9KRpEkGfY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM9KRpEkGfY


Lennon and McCartney had more talent in their dicks than the Glimmer Twins had in their entire bodies...

[last_texas_dem]

17. Beatles

Both bands are great and the Stones have several excellent albums in their discography. But the Beatles never released a weak album, were more influential (culturally and musically), were more innovative, their music is more diverse and interesting, and, overall, holds up better today than the Stones'. (All IMHO, of course.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

23. The Beatles Were Much More Versatile

For every "Yesterday" , "Here, There, And Everywhere", and "And I Love Her" which stands up there with the best of Cole Porter's work there was a "Revolution", "Helter Skelter", and "Back In the USSR" which would rock your socks off...

The Stones did the same thing over and over... The Beatles were much more versatile... The Stones are like a sexual partner who is only comfortable and knows how to do it missionary style with the lights off...

[jeff30997]

29. "The Stones did the same thing over and over... "

Soooooo TRUE !

[DemocratSinceBirth]

30. You Can Make A Decent Argument For Both Bands....

I just thought it was preposterous to suggest the Beatles were pretentious pop stars who played circus music... I think when posters suggest the Beatles were "pretentious" they are alluding to the fact that the Beatles were experimental; that's what made them great artists...


I saw the Stones in concert in 81...They were awesome... It's just that their body of work doesn't stand up to the body of work of the Beatles and they have had five times as long to do so...

You can dismiss "Yesterday", "Eleanor Rigby", and "And I Love Her" but they have become twentieth century standards...How many standards have the Stones made?

[gbate]

31. This is why I have to say the Beatles. No contest, really.

[MrSlayer]

21. Beatles were great at pop, The Stones are down and dirty Rock n Roll.

Stones win. They're just tougher and way more street.

[MorningGlow]

26. Beatles--no question

Far more versatile. Plus I always get annoyed when the Stones swear they're a "blues band". Gimme a break. Rock is rock--they should just own up to it and stop trying to pretend they're a bunch of old black guys from New Orleans already.

[mvd]

32. Beatles are my favorite artist, period

So nothing against the Stones that I didn't pick them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. The Stones Are A Great Group...

It's just silly to casually dismiss the Beatles as some in this thread did...

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2007 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend on donations
from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for your support.

[Kajsa]

37. IMHO, The Stones.

But I'm biased, as I've loved them for 43 years.

I like the Beatles, and they are very talented ---
BUT---

I feel at home with Stone music- It's a big,
big part of my past and present.

As Eric Clapton once said,
" they ARE what rock n roll is about".

;-)

[AnotherGreenWorld]

38. The Beatles...