Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2017 0:44:51 GMT
If you buy the red and blue albums that's all you need. However if you buy the hot rocks and more hot rocks you still will probably definitely need to buy some of the later rolling stones records before they all started to be horrible. so therefore the rolling stones have a higher quality output than the beatles. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 3, 2017 1:39:17 GMT
Strange logic...
|
|
|
|
Post by Nicko's Nose on Sept 3, 2017 2:58:31 GMT
Ugh this guy...
|
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Sept 3, 2017 3:30:20 GMT
The Beatles have 213 songs. 202 of them are widely known and are great.
The Stones have 522 songs. Only 21 of them are widely known and great.
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
 
|
Post by theshape25 on Sept 4, 2017 4:19:23 GMT
If you buy the red and blue albums that's all you need. The fact that Revolver is hardly represented in the 1962-66 album tells me that statement is not true. There are also many good White Album and Abbey Road cuts that aren't on the 1967-70 album. If someone were just getting into the Beatles but wasn't sure if they were going to like them I would probably tell them to start with these two albums, but there are a lot of Beatles songs that aren't as well known that are very good. |
|
|
|
Post by dougb on Sept 5, 2017 10:39:01 GMT
Apart from them being at the forefront of the UK music scene in the mid to late 60's I've never really understood why they needed to be compared so much as they were completely different things. The Beatles were a pop band mostly and the Stones were R&B mostly and as musicians they were both competent but hardly worldbeaters.
I'd get far more worked up over The Kinks and The Who myself as songwriters and the Yardbirds, Spencer Davis Group, Them and early Fleetwood Mac as musicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Sept 5, 2017 10:48:53 GMT
I was expecting the post to simply be a link to something like:
|
|
theshape25
Sophomore
@theshape25
Posts: 877
Likes: 536
|
Post by theshape25 on Sept 6, 2017 8:04:34 GMT
Apart from them being at the forefront of the UK music scene in the mid to late 60's I've never really understood why they needed to be compared so much as they were completely different things. The Beatles were a pop band mostly and the Stones were R&B mostly and as musicians they were both competent but hardly worldbeaters. I'd get far more worked up over The Kinks and The Who myself as songwriters and the Yardbirds, Spencer Davis Group, Them and early Fleetwood Mac as musicians. I agree. They both have a completely different thing going on. I could never see The Beatles doing something like Sympathy For the Devil or Gimmie Shelter and I could never see The Stones doing Strawberry Fields Forever or A Day in the Life. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2017 8:32:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Sept 6, 2017 8:57:57 GMT
I am glad im not the only one who doesn't get the comparison. both are entirely based off different basic influences and sounds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2017 1:33:17 GMT
|
|
