Korean Job Discussion Forums

Bo Peabody · Joined: 25 Aug 2005

VS.

TheFonz · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Location: North Georgia

Beatles on so many levels. "The Beatles were so high they even let Ringo sing a couple of tunes"- Bill Hicks

Bulsajo · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

I want to say Beatles, I should say Beatles, but when I compare discographies, the Stones have the songs that really grab me.
It's a shame the Beatles didn't have 10 more years (and the Stones 20 less)...

Bo Peabody · Joined: 25 Aug 2005

[deleted]

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

(Mick Jaggar would probably grab anyone ...)

The Beatles are/were superior musically by dint of their finer tunes and vocal harmonies. The Stones are certainly more earthy and bluesy (and lazy, hazy, phasey and crazy...) but they were not inhabitants of Gandharva (known for its great celestial singers and musicians...) prior to transmigrating to earth... Cool

Bulsajo · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

In high school/college it was the Beatles all the way. I owned their albums. Stayed up all night with my friend taping the White Album off the radio and listening to it over and over. Didn't get into the Stones much. But as time went by, I found I lost interest in the Beatles. I don't think their music has worn well. The Stones' songs, however, have. Music doesn't get any better than "You Can't Always Get What You Want".

Tiberious aka Sparkles · Joined: 23 Jan 2003 Location: I'm one cool cat!

The Stones were great, but it isn't even close.

Sparkles*_*

Bulsajo · Joined: 16 Jan 2003

eamo · Joined: 08 Mar 2003 Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.

The Stones were great but even an impartial observer could see that they were riding on the coat tails of the Beatles until the split in 1970. After the Beatles split, the Stones became an awesome recording and live outfit for a few years. Then they became a touring machine.

IMO their last great song was Undercover of the Night...in...maybe..1979?

TheFonz · Joined: 01 Dec 2005 Location: North Georgia

Bulsajo wrote

Rteacher · Joined: 23 May 2005 Location: Western MA, USA

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the "TheFonz" just alluded to a commercial made by "Macho Man" Randy Savage that ran a long time ago - and which mainly only wrestling fans would get ...

SPINOZA · Joined: 10 Jun 2005 Location: $eoul

They're pretty different musically and the only reason they're mentioned together is because they're big contemporaries. I voted for the Beatles however because IMO there's more variation. I love both though. I like the Beatles' earlier work more these days - Ticket to Ride, I'll Follow the Sun, I should've known better, Love me do. Revolver is overrated. And I hate Strawberry Fields Forever and I am the Walrus. Hate them so much. Sorry John.

Fave Stones songs: Hide your love (from 'Goat's Head Soup', an excellent name for an album), Play with fire, Spider and the Fly, The last time, Tumbling dice.

identity · Joined: 22 Apr 2006

charlie and ronnie are both in pretty bad shape and i believe ringo could take them both out in a fight if he was equipped with drumsticks. mick looks like he's in pretty good condition from all the dancing, and in a deathmatch with paul his lips would give him a plus 2 defensive bonus, but i think in the end paul would prevail, as he has wings, and the power of flight would allow him to attack from unexpected angles. john, being actually dead, has only a slight disadvantage against bill wyman, who only appears dead.
george obviously would not participate in this unholy battle royale, living or dead, but merely chant hari krisna to himself quietly in the corner.
of course, in the end it all comes down to kief who, having already died on a dozen previous occasions(unbeknownst to himself), would continue to play on after everyone else drops from exhaustion, regardless of how many times he is killed in the future.

of course, this thread begs the question: better surrealist, bob dylan or salvadore dali?

Dev · Joined: 18 Apr 2006

The Rolling Stones are better than The Beatles.
The Beatles are a studio band. Although they produced many wonderful classics, they couldn't play their way live out of a paper bag. The Stones were the opposite (I write "were" because they aren't the same band at all nowadays). They were hit and sometimes miss with their studio recordings, but were amazing live. Have a listen to most Stones live recordings in the decade from approx. 1969 ~ 1979, and you'll be blown away by their energy.