The age old debate

The age old debate....

Other urls found in this thread:

rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Oh no, not again

I give the Beatles this much. They quit when they should have instead of hanging on decades past their prime/

Th 8ge old deb8

there's no debate. the stones are shit

beatles DESU

Hmm hard one. On one hand, The Beatles are the best thing to happen to popular music. On the other, lol jk the Rolling Stones are fuckin garbage.

"The Rolling Stones were a bunch of coddled momma's boys who went to college and then moved to London to live in squalour and gain cred. Not that I didn't like some of their songs, but they could never touch the Beatles for wit, harmony, melody, songwriting, sense of humour, or presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger's dancing. The Beatles, they were gear."

Who fucking cares they're not even in the same genre

>The Beatles are the best thing to happen to popular music

You spelled Bob Dylan wrong.

>hanging on decades past their prime

No, that was saved for Paul McCartney's solo career.

>Who fucking cares
You for coming here and caring enough to make this post.

I cared enough to say who fucking cares I don't care about the actual debate also not an argument

The Beatles were more innovative in the studio but the Stones were better musicians.
See this is what newfags actually believe

All post-Exile Stones is garbage except for Some Girls, but then all post-1972 former Beatle member albums are also garbage, so...

Yet you keep bumping this thread so more people can come and care while stay in the thread you so dearly don't care about. Not only contributing more to this but reinforcing why people care.
Just get out of here you big baby. You're not helping yourself.

Some Girls basically sucks, Goats Head Soup is about half garbage and half good

*staying

the stones make rock n roll

the beatles make bubblegum pop for little girls

weird how true this is. the beatles were hardcore then brian cleaned their image. the stones were college boys who acted rock n roll. theyre both good though

Still not an argument

Goat's Head Soup [Rolling Stones, 1973]

Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D" and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear The Music", these are good songs. But while Mick Jagger's delivery has always been indolent, here I actually catch him nodding off between verses. Normally, without trying to be tight, the band jumps into a reckless, sweaty coherence. Here, they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "Starfucker", the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of their career, does the band take off from where they started. B

It's Only Rock and Roll [Rolling Stones, 1974]

When I listen closely, I can hear enough audacious jokes, catchy licks, and arresting bass runs for two albums. I also hear lazy rhymes, indolent phrasing, and two sides that start at a plateau and slide downhill from there, as well as a song about Father Time and a title track that appears to mean more than it intends. Or do I mean more than I intend? B-

Black and Blue [Rolling Stones, 1976]

More blatantly imitative of black-music rhythms and styles than any Stones album since December's Children, and also less original (if more humorous) in the transformation, this nevertheless takes genuine risks and suggests a way out of their groove. Lots of good stuff, but the key is "Hot Stuff," pure Ohio-Players-go-to-Kingston and very fine shit, and the high point "Fool to Cry," their best track in four years. Diagnosis: not dead by a long shot. A-

Love You Live [Rolling Stones, 1977]

As a Stones loyalist, I am distressed to report that this documents the Stones' suspected deterioration as a live band, a deterioration epitomized by the accelerating affectation of Mick's vocals. Once his slurs teased, made jokes, held out double meanings; now his refusal to pronounce final dentals--the "good" and "should" of "Brown Sugar," for example--convey bored, arrogant laziness, as if he can't be bothered hoisting his tongue to the roof of his mouth. His "oo-oo-oo"s and "awri-i"s are self-parody without humor. This is clearly a professional entertainer doing a job that just doesn't get him off the way it once did, a job that gets harder every time out. C+

Some Girls [Rolling Stones, 1978]

The Stones' best album since Exile on Main Street is also their easiest since Let It Bleed or before. They haven't gone for a knockdown uptempo classic, a "Brown Sugar" or "Jumping Jack Flash"--just straight rock and roll unencumbered by horn sections or Billy Preston. Even Jagger takes a relatively direct approach, and if he retains any credibility for you after six years of dicking around, there should be no agonizing over whether you like this record, no waiting for tunes to kick in. Lyrically, there are some bad moments--especially on the title cut, which is too fucking indirect to suit me--but in general the abrasiveness seems personal, earned, unposed, and the vulnerability more genuine than ever. Also, the band is a real good one--especially the drummer. A

>It's Only Rock and Roll [Rolling Stones, 1974]
>When I listen closely, I can hear enough audacious jokes, catchy licks, and arresting bass runs for two albums. I also hear lazy rhymes, indolent phrasing, and two sides that start at a plateau and slide downhill from there, as well as a song about Father Time and a title track that appears to mean more than it intends. Or do I mean more than I intend? B-

I remember in one of his columns, he complained about shitty mid-70s Stones songs like Fingerprint File and how the band also decided to be faggots and play them live.

Come on, Fingerprint File is a cool song. Especially that 70s porno funk riff.

IDK, I never quite liked Keith Richards' tone. Maybe because I don't much like that country music guitar kind of sound.

>the beatles make bubblegum pop for little girls
The Stones would have done this if Mick Jagger had had his way, because he's the pop/dance guy while Keef is the rocker.

Ah yes, lazy mid-70s Stones, when they were awash in cocaine and hookers and it took punk rock to give them a wakeup call.

The mixing on their albums went to shit after Mick Taylor left, IORR especially is a fuzzy mess.

You forgot Band on the Run asshole

Lemmy, when he was a kid, saw the Beatles performing in the Liverpool club days so he knew they were the real stuff.

This and Exile are best Stones.

exile>any eatles album

I love the Beatles, but it's the Stones. The Beatles did a lot of great songs, were fun, diverse, likeable, but they never made an album as good as Exile on Main Street. And then there's Some Girls, Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers... I'll take those albums over Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's any time.

Anyone have the image thing of Keith Richards quotes where he shits on every other band in the world?

Every Stones album up to Start Me Up manages to be interesting, even the filler tracks are not without their charms. After that however, it's just product and doesn't even feel like the same band anymore.

When I was in high school I was going through your typical teenager's love affair with the Beatles, and I bought Abbey Road and listened to it for the first time and hated it. Today I love it, but back then I was such a supreme dumbass that I was sitting there hating it and then "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" came on and I was like "Finally, the good shit."

wtf? complete opposite for me. i grew to appreciate the 'bubblegum' stuff when i got older

...

Paint It Black is catchy and Keith is iconic as fuck Beatles are fucking annoying and John was a wifebeater. Not that hard.

Too bad the Stones are cringy as fuck being in their 70s and still pretending to be badass rock stars.

The beach boys

Mmm. Apples.

>Not separating the art from the artist
ENOUGH

The Beatles. You could make a Beatles playlist for drinking on Saturday night and for relaxing in bed hungover on Sunday morning, and they'd both be great.

In music and film both seem too close to do it. The artist is part of their music.

I'd say the Beatles' cool factor has held up better over time while the Stones have been laughed at for being washed up dinosaur rockers for 25+ years now.

That's more an artifact of the Beatles quitting in 1970 and not performing live when they're aging bags of bones (Paul's solo career doesn't count).

paul doesnt act like a rockstar though. hes a normal family man who happens to play music.

Not to say every other dadrock band hasn't done it, but the Rolling Stones have long been the prototype for comically ridiculous past-their-prime rockers.

I live in Seattle and Nirvana are still considered cool here while Pearl Jam are just laughed at by the kids as silly dadrock. Probably again because Kurt Cobain died in his youthful prime and we never had to see the middle aged version of him poodling around onstage.

Yeah, the stones were better musicians, but the Beatles superior songwriting makes me like them much more.

Bridges to Babylon is the worst Stones album bar none. If nothing else, it's the nearest thing there is to a completely pointless Stones album with no reason at all for being.

Are you meant to just disappear off the face of the earth and do nothing for the rest of your life after your peak years?

Also, it's The Beatles and it isn't even remotely close.

"Everyone has a finite number of good songs in them and I'm not an exception. Paul McCartney, one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, has written nothing but manure for over 25 years. Rock stars over the age of 30 do not produce important material."

there is no debate. Rolling Stones output isn't very good at all. They got stamina but The Beatles are incomparable

No shit you can make amazing albums when you give up touring and spend 16 hours a day in the studio every day for 2-3 months perfecting an album.

Paul is still a way better songwriter than Gallagher

Stop the Clocks [Sony/BMG, 2006]

One of the many things I never understood about this band is just where the Beatles were. The wit, the ebullience, the harmonies, God, just the singing...uh, the songwriting? Cotton Mather made me understand that when Oasis say they love the Beatles, they really mean the post-Help!, pre-Sgt. Pepper Beatles, but that excuse doesn't fly because A. I fucking love the Beatles from start to finish and B. that stretch includes Velvet Revolver and Rubber Soul, so comparisons are only valid when you come up with songs at least as good as...uh..."We Can Work It Out"? Instead, Oasis, meaning loudmouth bro Noel Gallagher, write songs that resemble the Revolver-era Beatles in momentum and thickened texture, but not in depth, wit, or charm, and then add arena swagger in the size of the drums and bigged-up vocals. This band-selected 18-song compilation captures their sonic moment as fully as anyone needs. My one gripe is that they left off the first album's opener "Rock and Roll Star". If there's one song that sums up these bigheads' message to the world, it's that. B+

this honestly.

Literally The Who

The Stones ripped off the Beatles so the choice is obvious.

>writes an entire paragraph shitting on Oasis
>still gives the album a B+

this

Lemmy is right. I also lost a lot of respect for the Stones when I realized most of their career was made up of chasing trends. They were a white blues band when that was cool among middle-class kids, then they switched the a more Beatles-ish sound when they got big. After Sgt. Pepper, they tried making psychedelic records and eventually Keith met Gram Parsons and got into country rock, which they ended up sort of sticking with. They even recorded a disco album for fuck's sake.

Wings > Beatles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stones

>They even recorded a disco album for fuck's sake

>one track designed for maximum commerciality on an album almost otherwise consisting entirely of rockers

My dad said that a lot of people didn't like the Rolling Stones back in the day.

>they can't play, they sound like a bar band
>they're all about money and cult of celebrity, it's not about the music
>they're douchebags who charge hefty ticket prices and act like assholes to the fans

Problem with the Stones is that they were always media darlings who hung out with celebrities and had their nuts licked by rock journalists.

As for them not being able to play, this is unfair, they always had the best groove bar none. I guess a lot of the people who said they couldn't play were metalfags who thought you weren't a good band if you didn't sound like Zeppelin or Sabbath with those nice, tight overdriven riffs.

Aerosmith >>>>>>>>>> the stones

Wings, the band The Beatles could have been!

Well, and bands like Sabbath/Zeppelin/Grand Funk with working class roots/fanbases got routinely shat on by the media.

I mean, shit. The bands who actually had prole origins were made out to be worse than Hitler while art school dropouts represented the true spirit of rock and roll according to Rolling Stone Magazine, Bangs, Christgau, etc.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Yeah dude, and it's not even close. The Rolling Stones are the most overrated product to come out of rock music as a whole.

Yeh but the music press all consisted of similar upper middle class art school dropouts so no shit they liked artists that were similar to themselves.

Keep telling yourself that. The Rolling Stones are pure joy. You'll appreciate them when you mature. Hang in there! Just trying to help! :)

I for one am glad to live in the 21st century where we don't have to rely on a couple of faggy New York hipsters to tell us what artists we should and shouldn't listen to.

This.

As if the Beatles were never chasing trends, haha.

>implying Shitgau and Bangs's opinions ever actually mattered
>implying anyone in the 70s or today ever bought an album based on what Rolling Stone Mag said about it
Shit, the biggest selling albums in the 70s were rarely ever critical darlings with the occasional exception like Rumours. In fact most of the time, the mega-sellers were critically panned.

rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_/

Anyone wanting an epic examination of all this should read Rock and the Pop Narcotic by Joe Carducci.

The Rolling Stone Album Guide trashed Black Sabbath in every edition until 2004 when they finally gave them their proper due.

>implying anyone in the 70s or today ever bought an album based on what Rolling Stone Mag said about it

Lots of kids i knew back then.

>Anyone wanting an epic examination of all this should read Rock and the Pop Narcotic by Joe Carducci

It's simple. The music press has always loved punk and alternative bands because they're hipster art majors, and since metal is working class music, they don't understand or relate to it. Also the early rock journalists were mostly New Yorkers so they gave a disproportionate amount of attention to the Velvet Underground, Patti Smith, New York Dolls, and the Ramones.

Rolling Stone Mag has very rarely ever covered metal other than sometimes Metallica.

I prefer the Beatles, though the Stones have great albums as well. I haven't heard an album by the Stones that has impacted me as much as Revolver, The White Album, or even some of their singles like "Paperback Writer" and "Rain". BUT, Satanic majesties, Aftermath, Between the Buttons, and Beggars are absolutely fantastic.

I have a bunch of old Encyclopedia Britannica Year Books from the 70s-80s and the music section in them almost always discusses nothing but punk, New Wave, pop, and dadrock shit like the Rolling Stones. Metal is given a passing mention at most.

The Beach Boys

It hasn't changed all that much throughout the years. For example, neither Chuck Sculdiner nor William Tolleys' deaths made the mainstream music press at all.

Joe Carducci took a pretty right wing political approach to his writing which was very different from the usual progressive left stance of most music journalists. Christgau called his book "interesting if not terribly important". A lot of the music press complained about Carducci's politics.

>Jairo Smith
NO

The age old debate of chalk and cheese.

And Bruce Springsteen. For god's sake, the man can't sing for shit and he can't play for shit. There's more to good music than just the artist having politics you happen to agree with.

underrated

If you've ever read Rolling Stone, they're actually more of a liberal politics magazine than a music magazine.

Has Rolling Stone ever actually been an influential publication, other than maybe artists "getting the Rolling Stone cover"? Pitchfork pretty much brought Arcade Fire and Bon Iver into the mainstream, as well as ruined the careers of Jet and Travis Morrison. Has Rolling Stone ever had actual influence over something?

Oh yeah, Carducci was super radical compared the the usual rock critics of the time.

One funny thing that i remember is from back in the 90s when i was doing reviews for a few undergroud magazines. One of the editors forwarded me thanks from a label since i was the sole reviewer that actually concentrated solely on the music.

Older dude here.

Rolling Stone was very influential back in the 70s and 80s.

>Has Rolling Stone ever actually been an influential publication
For a brief while in the late 60s.

>One of the editors forwarded me thanks from a label since i was the sole reviewer that actually concentrated solely on the music
As opposed to the artists' politics?

Used to review anything regardless of a bands personal or political beliefs. A few were rather dodgy, but music wise were quite good so of course they got good reviews.

>the man can't sing for shit and he can't play for shit

His politics are pretty much meh but he sure has a handle on his music.

is there a single post in this thread that cares about talking about the music?