Elite 8 (1960's) - #1 The Beatles vs #2 The Rolling Stones
- Thread starter YellowSnow
- Start date
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
I know which one I prefer.
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?
GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.
Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?
GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?
GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.
I would concede I'm not on you're level if you're gonna play RECORDING STUDIO SUPERIORITY GUY.
As much as I love Aftermath, it can't hold a candle to Revolver in terms of influence/brilliance. But then oh wait, Paint It Black was a better single than anything the Beatles put out in 1966. And it's the best use of sitar on a rock record, even if George got there first. The Stones took many of the Beatles ideas and made them even better.
Completely agree. The Stones were way more influenced by jazz & blues though. They even took their name from Muddy Waters.
In my early years I grew up loving the Beatles and being pretty oblivious to the Stones. When I finally found the Stones as a teenager though, I listened to their entire discography from 64' to 72' in one sitting.
My father, who is a bit of an audiophile, has all of these albums, Beatles & Rolling Stones, on vinyl from their first US releases. He prefers the Stones by a wide margin.
The one thing that sucks about early Stones records is they sound like shit up until Aftermath in 1966. The only exception is the tracks they cut at Chess in 1964. The early Beatles records were much better recorded sound-wise.
Yet another reason why Stones better than Beatles, more kick ass black female backing vocals.
When Otis covers your shit, you're pretty much GOAT
He needed mor tim. Stupid lakes.
backthepack
New Fish
Both are great. Stones over Beatles because they sound better.
Stones had a dude OD, Beatles had a dude get whacked on his porch. Advantage: Stones.
And Keith Motherfucking Richards is going to outlive every single one of us. So, Stones.
And Keith Motherfucking Richards is going to outlive every single one of us. So, Stones.
There aren't many fast strategy musicians who have cheated death more times than Keef.
There aren't many fast strategy musicians who have cheated death more times than Keef.
Proving that FS can outlive SS since December 1980.
backthepack
New Fish
@YellowSnow After Review
1. Stones
2. Who
1. Stones
2. Who
I'd put Beatles at 2 and Who 3 but that my top 3 right there. Zeppelin is 4.