Comments on: 21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles : Part One http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/ Rants, opinions and, um, more rants from a typically repressed Englishman. Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:31:35 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Jeff http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-109 Jeff Mon, 19 May 2008 07:19:21 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-109 Okay, Ringo wasn't a great drummer but by no means is Watts any better. I am a drummer and I always thought Charlie Watts sucks, he was enough for the Stones but he doesn't deserve half of the credit he receives; drums are a musical instrument too, not just a tool to keep the band in time. And on that note, John Bonham was even worse and yet he's hailed as one of the greatest drummers ever lived. Hello? Has anyone ever heard of Neil Peart?! Both Zepplin and Rush formed in 1968; chew on that. Let's say those "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Hello, Goodbye" are terrible songs, of the roughly 193 recorded Beatles' songs that I count, that constitutes for 1.03% failure rate, which falls within a 3-sigma boundary. That's pretty good from a industrial engineer's perspective. Seriously though, I can't agree with you to any degree on this; Lennon was a phenomenal lyricist, that is the one thing about the Beatles I've always admired. I can see why you think the Beatles are overrated, because I used to until very recently. I'm trying to cover Beatles songs on acoustic guitar, but their chord progressions are insanely complicated and still they make all their songs sound simple. Because of this, all people find their music easy to listen to and can groove to it. That takes tremendous thought and creativity, I honestly have not heard a band that can do what they have done. In contrast, the Stones just ripped-off Robert Johnson, Son House, and John Lee Hooker, but mostly Johnson. All of which is a lot easier to do than innovate. So, from a musician's standpoint, the Beatles are, without question, superior songwriters. If you like the Stones more that's your own prerogative. Okay, Ringo wasn’t a great drummer but by no means is Watts any better. I am a drummer and I always thought Charlie Watts sucks, he was enough for the Stones but he doesn’t deserve half of the credit he receives; drums are a musical instrument too, not just a tool to keep the band in time. And on that note, John Bonham was even worse and yet he’s hailed as one of the greatest drummers ever lived. Hello? Has anyone ever heard of Neil Peart?! Both Zepplin and Rush formed in 1968; chew on that.

Let’s say those “Strawberry Fields Forever” and “Hello, Goodbye” are terrible songs, of the roughly 193 recorded Beatles’ songs that I count, that constitutes for 1.03% failure rate, which falls within a 3-sigma boundary. That’s pretty good from a industrial engineer’s perspective. Seriously though, I can’t agree with you to any degree on this; Lennon was a phenomenal lyricist, that is the one thing about the Beatles I’ve always admired.

I can see why you think the Beatles are overrated, because I used to until very recently. I’m trying to cover Beatles songs on acoustic guitar, but their chord progressions are insanely complicated and still they make all their songs sound simple. Because of this, all people find their music easy to listen to and can groove to it. That takes tremendous thought and creativity, I honestly have not heard a band that can do what they have done.

In contrast, the Stones just ripped-off Robert Johnson, Son House, and John Lee Hooker, but mostly Johnson. All of which is a lot easier to do than innovate.

So, from a musician’s standpoint, the Beatles are, without question, superior songwriters. If you like the Stones more that’s your own prerogative.

]]> By: dk http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-37 dk Sun, 02 Mar 2008 16:58:01 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-37 every time the Beatles made a musical movement the stones did the exact same shit one month later or at least tried to. the stones are just a bad boy version of the beatles minus the artistic merit. the made better sex-rock'n'roll than the Beatles later in their career but the Beatles were sex-rock when they came out and they graduated away from it and developing themselves more as musicians and producers, the Stones, even to this day, still just play off whatever the sound of the time is. i'm shocked they haven't tried to release a screamo album yet. every time the Beatles made a musical movement the stones did the exact same shit one month later or at least tried to. the stones are just a bad boy version of the beatles minus the artistic merit. the made better sex-rock’n'roll than the Beatles later in their career but the Beatles were sex-rock when they came out and they graduated away from it and developing themselves more as musicians and producers, the Stones, even to this day, still just play off whatever the sound of the time is. i’m shocked they haven’t tried to release a screamo album yet.

]]> By: Mike K http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-18 Mike K Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:42:31 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-18 Put it this way... The Stones were a great band, as were the Beatles, but the Stones will never be anything more than a great band. The Beatles were so much more than a great band.. They represented music as a whole... Truth is ... 40 years later.. People are still laughing at HELP! and A Hard Days Night Movies. Crowds of thousands are still singing the outro of Hey Jude, Sgt. Peppers will still be the number 1 album ever.. Yesterday will still be the most covered song ever, the Beatles will still be the most respected band ever, and the Beatles will still be the greatest band ever.. you can listen to that band of one voice, or you can listen to a band of four in one.. Noone would ever be able to convince me .. Put it this way…

The Stones were a great band, as were the Beatles, but the Stones will never be anything more than a great band.

The Beatles were so much more than a great band.. They represented music as a whole…

Truth is … 40 years later.. People are still laughing at HELP! and A Hard Days Night Movies. Crowds of thousands are still singing the outro of Hey Jude, Sgt. Peppers will still be the number 1 album ever.. Yesterday will still be the most covered song ever, the Beatles will still be the most respected band ever, and the Beatles will still be the greatest band ever..

you can listen to that band of one voice, or you can listen to a band of four in one..

Noone would ever be able to convince me ..

]]> By: Zeb http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-16 Zeb Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:27:47 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-16 Your kidding, right? First you say in the beginning how you like the Beatles, but then you rip them to shreds... What hypocrisy. Next, don't even get me started musically. Each Beatles album was different. Sure they had influences as we all do, but they created their own unique sound. And they were never satisfied with it or played it for it's money's worth till you could not stand it anymore. They constantly evolved. Listen to one Stones record, and you pretty much hear it all. Outside of Keith's incredible lick on Gimme Shelter it's the same standard blues for the most part. It's a shame they broke up when they did, and even worse that Lennon was killed before they got over themselves to reunite. Keith Richards should have been dead a long time ago. To this day I don't know how the man is still alive. Well if it's true that one can sell themselves to the devil, he gets my vote for sure. PS - Sure people copy Keith, but how many more copy the Beatles! Nuff Said. Your kidding, right? First you say in the beginning how you like the Beatles, but then you rip them to shreds… What hypocrisy.

Next, don’t even get me started musically. Each Beatles album was different. Sure they had influences as we all do, but they created their own unique sound. And they were never satisfied with it or played it for it’s money’s worth till you could not stand it anymore. They constantly evolved. Listen to one Stones record, and you pretty much hear it all. Outside of Keith’s incredible lick on Gimme Shelter it’s the same standard blues for the most part.

It’s a shame they broke up when they did, and even worse that Lennon was killed before they got over themselves to reunite. Keith Richards should have been dead a long time ago. To this day I don’t know how the man is still alive. Well if it’s true that one can sell themselves to the devil, he gets my vote for sure.

PS – Sure people copy Keith, but how many more copy the Beatles! Nuff Said.

]]> By: Eli http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-15 Eli Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:03:29 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-15 not pretty obvious you're a big Stone fan.. *wink* here's my $.02... it's undeniable that The Beatles has super huge influence on today's music. More than a handful of bands are here today because of the motivation they get on listening to Beatles records and an aspiration to get to the same level with them... amongst them are Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Oasis.. just to name a few. And the lyrics? Yep, The Beatles, specially John tries to write gibbirish (mostly on the Revolver onwards album) because people are trying to analyze and interpret each and every song... He got pissed in it one time, hence some 'non-sense' lyrics... (i am the walrus).. BTW, Strawberry fields? Most Beatles Critic adore that. ... not pretty obvious i'm a Beatle fan eh? :) not pretty obvious you’re a big Stone fan.. *wink*

here’s my $.02… it’s undeniable that The Beatles has super huge influence on today’s music. More than a handful of bands are here today because of the motivation they get on listening to Beatles records and an aspiration to get to the same level with them… amongst them are Nirvana, Nine Inch Nails, Oasis.. just to name a few.

And the lyrics? Yep, The Beatles, specially John tries to write gibbirish (mostly on the Revolver onwards album) because people are trying to analyze and interpret each and every song… He got pissed in it one time, hence some ‘non-sense’ lyrics… (i am the walrus).. BTW, Strawberry fields? Most Beatles Critic adore that.

… not pretty obvious i’m a Beatle fan eh? :)

]]> By: danbodd http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-14 danbodd Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:39:58 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-14 Its kinda hard to compare the two as they both play different styles and both played some of their best music in very different social eras. However, the Stones have adapted better, granted, half the Beatles are dead, but still.. they never really changed, they split up and McCartney is still churning out the same crud (well at least in my opinion it's crud) whereas the Stones' music has developed while still keeping in theme with the bands beginnings. Also I think the Stones are much better entertainers.. if its a show you want, Stones anyday... take the latest Superbowl performances from The Stones and McCartney respectively... But then again, what do I know... I also have simon & garfunkel on my mp3 player... Its kinda hard to compare the two as they both play different styles and both played some of their best music in very different social eras.
However, the Stones have adapted better, granted, half the Beatles are dead, but still.. they never really changed, they split up and McCartney is still churning out the same crud (well at least in my opinion it’s crud) whereas the Stones’ music has developed while still keeping in theme with the bands beginnings.
Also I think the Stones are much better entertainers.. if its a show you want, Stones anyday… take the latest Superbowl performances from The Stones and McCartney respectively…
But then again, what do I know… I also have simon & garfunkel on my mp3 player…

]]> By: dan http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-13 dan Wed, 20 Feb 2008 00:57:14 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-13 how can you be the best when there was nothing before. Of course everything would be better afterwards because they learnt from the originals. how can you be the best when there was nothing before. Of course everything would be better afterwards because they learnt from the originals.

]]> By: zydeco100 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-12 zydeco100 Tue, 19 Feb 2008 23:50:12 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-12 Plus, the Stones did a cereal commercial jingle. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZBmhEMFdl0 Plus, the Stones did a cereal commercial jingle.

]]> By: Deano http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-11 Deano Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:45:45 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-11 Great article! I have always thought this about the Beatles but I could never bring it up with my friends with them being hardened Beatles fans. I do like them but I honestly think they are extremely overrated. Being the first to do something doesn't necessarily make you the best. Anyway, looking forward to the rest Great article! I have always thought this about the Beatles but I could never bring it up with my friends with them being hardened Beatles fans. I do like them but I honestly think they are extremely overrated. Being the first to do something doesn’t necessarily make you the best.

Anyway, looking forward to the rest

]]> By: Dave http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/21-reasons-the-stones-were-better-than-the-beatles-part-one/#comment-10 Dave Tue, 19 Feb 2008 19:04:30 +0000 http://bluffcharging.wordpress.com/?p=6#comment-10 You can still hear the Beatles influence in so much of the music since. The rolling stones never really pushed their music and just relied on the traditional rock and blues standards. You can still hear the Beatles influence in so much of the music since. The rolling stones never really pushed their music and just relied on the traditional rock and blues standards.

]]>