How do people compare Rolling Stones song writing ability to the Beatles?
It seems like the Beatles are thought of as deeper in terms of arrangements and lyricism but many Stones songs seem much more clever than anything the Beatles could come up with and the Stones seemed to do justice to more genres than the Beatles did with psych, country, blues, folk, post-punk-ish in addition to 'bar room' music.
The Beatles stuff seems kind of hollow/superficial lovey dovey stuff lyric-wise
Other urls found in this thread:
The Beatles dump on the Stones. Always have. Always will. Stop this madness.
They've got strengths and weaknesses. The Beatles were ace songwriters from the beginning to the end, the Stones fell off around Some Girls. The Beatles were more innovative in the studio, the Stones were better musicians.
I don't even think Mick Jagger in his heart would agree with you OP. Keith Richards would because he's emotionally dishonest and a bit of a prick. Watch the Beatles Anthology and count the amount of times Mick is following the Beatles around like a fan.
I don't buy this notion that the Beatles had superior song writing
the lyrics are pretty pleb tier
the Stones lyrics were far more expansive and often far darker and more realistic/relatable while still arranged in clever word plays/prose
Beatles stuff seems so face value
Pretty much all of this is wrong.
>lyrics
Is only half of songwriting
You must not know music theory I take it?
>the Stones seemed to do justice to more genres than the Beatles did with psych, country, blues, folk, post-punk-ish in addition to 'bar room' music.
The Beatles did all of those things as well (except post-punk, but I don't see how The Stones did that either), and did them better. The Stones have like one or two consistently good albums.The Beatles have like 6 or 7 and were only around for 7 years. They're honestly just on a different level, the only reason people compare them is because The Stones were marketed as the "bad boy Beatles" for teenagers who were too cool to listen to The Beatles, despite the fact that The Beatles were playing harder and dirtier before the Rolling stones were even a thing.
Across The Universe alone has better lyrics than anything by The Stones.
lel
>many Stones songs seem much more clever than anything the Beatles could come up with
Such as?
>Stones seemed to do justice to more genres than the Beatles did with psych, country, blues, folk, post-punk-ish in addition to 'bar room' music.
Such as?
Stones are awesome but can't touch the Beatles. I think the only 60s bands that come closest are the Who, Kinks, and Byrds
Apples and oranges. The Beatles wrote pop songs, then progressed. Same with the Stones, but as they progressed they got darker, and more gritty, pulling from their stripped down blues influences. The Beatles legacy was cut short for sure, it’s hard to imagine about what would have followed Let It Be. Regardless, the stones had the greatest run of records released, from 1966 to 1978 they put out some of the best rock n roll of all time. As much as I love and respect the Beatles, I’d put Let It Bleed, Exile, Sticky Fingers, and even Beggars over most of the Beatles records.
Beatles usually get more credit on the songwriting end because they used lots of chords, chords novel to a rock context. the way their melodies are informed by those harmonies/interact w/ those harmonies was a big deal. The lyrics end is like, they were on par w/ their contemporaries, who were taking after Dylan in making pop more personal/topical/introspective/critical instead of like boilerplate ad-copy love songs. Um, the Stones are not as innovative harmonically, not nearly. I'll agree that they probably wrote some more authentically 'real' lyrics, and they clearly mastered several traditional idioms of American folk and beat musics and everything in between that spectrum. The stones are more grounded, and thrilling for their rawness, their sensuality. The Beatles however transport you to a realm of imaginative play, where forms break down and are molded into new forms upon a whim. There's not any reach for authenticity because they exist in a different plane entirely.
how the fuck can you put the who, kinks and byrds in the same league as stones and beatles
Not an argument
Did you read my post idiot ?
...
>I think the only 60s bands that come closest are the Who, Kinks, and Byrds
in the context of your grammar, this means: 'comes closest to the beatles'
thus, you are putting those above the stones
Yes they are better than the Stones. But worse than the Beatles. Is this clear enough ?
It’s clear you’re a fucking moron.
>The stones were better musicians
Get your head out of your ass mate
Of course it is. Read it again.
You aren't a musician I assume?
Not him, but I am, and you're out of your mind if you think that. The only noteworthy one of them was Richards and even he's overrated. Meanwhile McCartney was practically a virtuoso on every instrument. George and Ringo were economical with their musicianship but were masterful with how and when they used it, it's honestly rare to find a guitarist like George who actually purposefully plays with the melody in mind, without just mimicking it. John was the only mediocre one, and he more than made up for that with his songwriting.
>Meanwhile McCartney was practically a virtuoso on every instrument.
This. Greatest musician ever. More talent in his pinky than the Stones' bodies
>The Stones have one or two consistently good albums
u wot m8
I love those bands but they are not better than the Stones
>the only noteworthy was Richards
Lets completely forget about one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock n' roll, sure m8.
>Lets completely forget about one of the greatest rhythm sections in rock n' roll, sure m8.
It doesn't make them a better band.
Did I say that? I'm just saying you're completely writing off the Stones as second rate when anyone who knows a thing or two would disagree.
>Did I say that?
Your implications did
>I'm just saying you're completely writing off the Stones as second rate
When did I say that?
>anyone who knows a thing or two would disagree.
Oh how long have you been studying music theory?
Ah so you understand that The Beatles were much more sophisticated in harmony and voice leading than The Stones?
where'd the post go buddy
'Sympathy for the devil' is one of my favourite songs in terms of lyrics
It really is a masterpiece. Too bad it's been overplayed to hell and back on classic rock radio and in movies so I can't really listen to it anymore
how is suggesting that the stones had an all time great rhythm section an implication that they're a better band? you're reaching here
>The Virgin Beatles versus The Chad Rolling Stones
which one are you, Sup Forums? I'm one of those assclowns who thinks that Ram is better than most of the Beatles catalog so my opinions are invalid
>how is suggesting that the stones had an all time great rhythm section an implication that they're a better band? you're reaching here
Why else would you bring it up?
Also, so you are admitting they weren't a better band?
that user wasn't me.
>The only noteworthy one of them was Richards and even he's overrated.
You're making much broader implications than I am.
>The Beatles were much more sophisticated in harmony and voice leading than The Stones?
True, but it's apples and oranges. The Stones were an R&B band. Their rhythm section put Ringo and Paul to shame.
>You're
Again, which post did I say this?
>True
Thanks for playing.
>every user that responds to me in a thread is the same person
I think the beatles are better but not everyone that brings up positive things about the stones is out to prove that they're better, it's a pretty neutral statement in context
again, not that user, but I brought it up because you said no besides keef was "noteworthy"
>it's a pretty neutral statement in context
Sounds like you didn't read the context of the conversation
Where did I say that?
Satisfaction is great too.
>When I'm watching my TV
>And that man comes on to tell me
>How white my shirts can
>But he can't be a man cause he doesn't smoke
>The same cigarettes as me
nope, all he said before you mentioned implications was that they have more than 2 good albums, they're better than a few other bands, and that they have a good rhythm section, nothing that implies they're better than the beatles up to that point
m8, if the user who said literally those exact words wasn't you, you could just say so. It's pretty clear that's why I brought up the the Stones' rhythm section.
>didn't read the context of the conversation
how many levels of irony are you operating on m8? or are you just retarded?
Ah so it was an irrelevant post. Thanks
>every user that responds to me in a thread is the same person
except you gathered that that's what he was implying from it
Yep, it's called logic. Try it sometime.
are terse, one line semantics all you come to this board to do? you're awfully committed to it
autism ruins another thread
>I'll LARP as an user only to reveal that I, in fact, was not that user and therefore exempt myself from the dialogue
Some brilliant logic there m8. I directly referred to several anons and you went off on a tangent about muh implications when there were none
Irrelevant
What do you mean.
Stonesfags having know real musical knowledge ruined this thread.
Kinks > all
it's pretty easy to tell when you're in a thread based on your diction and the way you format your posts and it's always over the pettiest shit like this, you obviously know theory to some degree so it's just interesting to me idk
>obviously know theory to some degree
Don't let him fool you
People that hold music theory over people's heads to prove that they're somehow objectively right about stuff is so aggravating. I happen to even agree with the guy in this thread but his assertion that he is always right because of music theory is rubbish.
The Beatles beat the Rolling Stones
What do you mean?
Well, prove me wrong.
Music is subjective. You're insufferable. Stop being such a wet blanket.
>Music is subjective
Then why do you state things as fact? Sounds like you are a glutton for punishment.
Everything I'm saying is my opinion, not a fact. If you weren't autistic you'd infer that everything said about a subjective topic is an opinion. In my opinion, you are an insufferable faggot.
>Everything I'm saying is my opinion
Quote me where you stated such
Why bother discussing music if it's all subjective?
>Why bother discussing music if it's all subjective?
Because it can be interesting to do so and learn about new music, but otherwise basically everyone on this board and website is wasting their time, myself included. You're here forever by the way.
>and learn about new music
Irrelevant. We are discussing new music. Answer the question.
>are
*aren't
We are discussing music from the 60s, not new music, are you high ? If I'm going to talk about music from the 60s it won't be with someone with autism
...
Oops my mistake. Anyway I don't really feel like arguing about anything right now, have a good night brother, sorry I called you autistic.
I respect the Beatles greatly and I actually really like them. They are great songwriters to be sure. But they don't have any songs that move me the way prime Stones does. They don't play from the soul or dig deep to find something convincing. The best Beatles related album I think is All Things Must Pass because you feel Harrison's spirit coming through.
OK goodnight.
>They don't play from the soul
>convincing
How is this measured?
I don't think it can be, it is just something you feel and is probably entirely subjective as well. That is just how they sound to me. That doesn't mean I don't like their music, we are talking two of the best bands ever, but that little thing is I think what pushes the Stones over the top, I feel their synergy as a band and the crazed passion in Mick's voice and it just connects to something in me.
>I don't think it can be
Then your comments are irrelevant
>Stones
>Playing from the soul
They literally coined the term "plastic soul" to describe Mick Jagger's shitty fake attempt to cash in on black music.
>I love those bands but they are not better than the Stones
The Stones aren't even in the same league with the Who.
IT WON'T BE LONG YEAH
>know
You seam clevver.
every Stones non-single sounds the same
even The Beatles shittier songs are usually at least decent
I can count objectively bad Beatles songs on one hand. They were that good
I feel like the beatles legacy was saved by the fact john was shot. The stones are pretty much walking corpses on a forever tour. I feel like young people even today bring up the beatles more than the stones.
I think the rolling stones were able to conjure up a bad boy image better than the Beatles who were seen as the good boys. Only the stones could write a song about satan. But only the beatles could write complete and utter shit about yellow submarines and be taken seriously.
The beatles were the cute boys next door, the stones were those boys your dad didnt want you hanging about
>I think the rolling stones were able to conjure up a bad boy image better than the Beatles who were seen as the good boys
>“...the Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles--not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.”
based Lemmy
>john lennon was a drug addicted and beat his wife
>ringo was gay
>mccartney was a pothead
>harrison cucked other people's wives
>good boys
When will this meme end?
>they made statues of them in Liverpool
>when someone mentioned it to Ringo he said he didn't care and doesn't miss Liverpool one bit
>the next day someone chopped off his statue's head
madman.
The Beatles' formative years were spent in Liverpool and Hamburg. If anything it's surprising their act was that clean for that long.
The Stones were definitely edgier, but the Beatles seem a lot more innocent now than they did at the time with their long hair, irreverent attitudes, songs that were clearly about sex, etc. I think they were in a kind of middle ground.
Between their almost overabundance of witty remarks (see: any Beatles interview during Beatlemania), their hybrid between clean, proper, pretty boy looks and this teenage/early adult culture style, and the songs which oftentimes were riddled with innuendo, they definitely felt not necessarily edgy but almosrt irreverent and fresh, and a lot closer to reality for a lot of people.
The Beatles have songs about dropping LSD, killing someone for loving someone else, burning someone's house down if they withhold sex, and one about killing the rich.
they were equal, stop picking sides fagfucks.
The Stones are a groove-driven band; if you're a metalfag who likes big, up-front guitars and drum solos, you won't "get" them.
It's not like a metalfag is going to be creaming to the Beatles either.
The Beatles were ultimately more experimental than the Stones, who leaned on a harder rock sound and more consistent rock image for success, whereas the Beatles had an eclectic mix of traditional pop appeal and drug-fueled lyricism.
Comparing the two is like comparing the beach boys to the yardbirds imo.