Thread: Stones vs. Beatles

I enjoy both equally. It just depends on my mood.

Cool article:

The 1960s were a decade when rock n’ roll was sweeping the scene and the British Invasion came knocking on US doors. Teens all over the world defined themselves by one thing, whether they were loyal to The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, and the rivalry didn’t stop with the fans. Though the two legendary groups were never to admit that they were in open competition with each other, it was hard to disregard the clear attempts to outperform one another on the charts week by week. So who took the prize? Almost five decades later and the answer is still shaky at best.

https://www.catawiki.com/stories/292...rolling-stones

I think The Beatles and The Rolling Stones are the top 2 in whatever order, then you get to bands like The Who, The Kinks, etc.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I would personally just cut out that live album and replace it with Quadrophenia.

Are you gonna listen in chronological order?

I kind of want to know about Between the Buttons though. I imagine it is a bit of a psychedelia attempt influenced by Pepper's success, but not sure. I want to see these artists working on the boundaries of their range. Huge fan of Ruby Tuesday and She's a Rainbow...I'd like some more of that. It doesn't touch Gimme Shelter and JJF type ballsy rock and roll, but it's a distinct sound and they kind of nail it.

I'm just going head to head for now. Exile vs. Who's Next. Going to take my time.

Originally Posted by Shazam!

I want to make a new thread

Stones v Beatles v Zeppelin v Floyd v Who

I think this thread can accommodate some topic drift like that. JMO.

Originally Posted by aberdien

But yes Between the Buttons (US Version) or Their Satanic Majesties Request for fun

I'm just going to go with six, keep the Who live album, and add Between the Buttons.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I kind of want to know about Between the Buttons though. I imagine it is a bit of a psychedelia attempt influenced by Pepper's success, but not sure. I want to see these artists working on the boundaries of their range. Huge fan of Ruby Tuesday and She's a Rainbow...I'd like some more of that. It doesn't touch Gimme Shelter and JJF type ballsy rock and roll, but it's a distinct sound and they kind of nail it.

I'm just going head to head for now. Exile vs. Who's Next. Going to take my time.

Between the Buttons is a good straightforward British rock album. Not much psychedelia, less loose and bluesy than what they would become, but it's a good one.

If you want them going out of their box to respond to Sgt. Pepper, that's Satanic Majesties.

I'm reading about Keith Moon vs Charlie Watts.

https://www.quora.com/Is-Keith-Moon-...-Charlie-Watts

I’d say the majority of drummers, including my self, much prefer Charlie. It’s not as valid a comparison as it may seem on the surface, however. The Who were basically four virtuoso soloists who managed to make it work because of the style of music that Pete Townshend wrote. It provided ample “space” for each of the four to showcase their technical skills.

The Rolling Stones were much more of a “band” in the traditional sense, with more emphasis on rhythm and song structure, hence it required a drummer who was a servant to the song, and Charlie Watts filled the bill to a T. I actually think that he was probably technically as good as Keith Moon, given Charlie’s jazz background, but he played in a setting where it was counterproductive musically to showcase that.

Drummers all have their fortes. I’ve looked at Keith’s drumming and it is spectacular, at the right places in a song. He is an integral part of that band’s musical composition. I can hear the accents he does in various passages in a given song. He is a highly compositional drummer. He is very inventive. He could not be held down - that was his personality.

Charlie Watts has tighter timing than a Cesium clock. This has been proven at least with a metronome. This ‘dead nuts’ timing allows Mick and the others to lean way out, timewize, like very few other bands, if any. Imagine the train is Charlie Watts, and the other guys are hanging out the windows, and running up and down the corridors - The Stones are so ‘loose’ because of this. I hear this with a lot of the old Brian Jones Stones, just chugging along with blues guitar, harp, slide. They are all riding on Charlie.

Different bands, different drummers.

Keith Moon is widely regarded as one of the greatest drummers ever. BUT to be fair, Moon’s role with The Who was drastically different that Charlie Watts. Its been said that The Who had a Lead Vocalist, Lead Guitarist, Lead Bass Guitar, and Lead Drummer. Moon is also considered one of the hardest drummers to copy. He was so unconventional; such as switching which foot did the bass drum mid song. Honestly I have Moon as one of the top three rock drummers ever.

I like The Who's singles, but I don't think I've ever listened to a whole album of theirs. I might have to depending on how Hawg ends up.

I would be shocked if they're able to rise above the Stones.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I like The Who's singles, but I don't think I've ever listened to a whole album of theirs. I might have to depending on how Hawg ends up.

I would be shocked if they're able to rise above the Stones.

I've been through each twice, and my early thought is that Exile is the better album but Who's Next has better songs--and not just the chart-toppers.

It's weird. Kind of spooky accurate that Moon vs. Watts comparison. I hear it.

My initial feeling was that Who's Next is a far stronger album...but the Stones album just has a kind of warmth and integrity to it somehow. I am glad to be doing this.

Per Shazam's request, I'm going to open up this controversy to other comers.

The controversy is: "Best rock band from the Album Era"

What I have realized is that to enter this arena, all a band needs is about 4-5 albums with generally strong tracks up and down the roster. This whole thing started because my son is going through this classic rock kind of phase, and Zep is probably his favorite band, so I made him a playlist of all of Zep's work. It occurred to me that they might be the actual best band ever--just song after song after song that was gold. Just now, my first pass through the 'top 6' albums from Stones and Who, I was surprised at the consistency of the Stones albums. The Who as well--these are legit albums. I know it's stupid of me, but better late than never.

So I am a huge Floyd fan, Dark Side is my all time fav, but I'd never really consider them in this conversation because 1) too psychedelic, and 2) inadequate repertoire. But they get a chance in the batters' box.

Then Abe likes the Kinks, and I have a feeling I should look at this.

So, a few rules.

For now, only considering Beatles, Zep, Stones, Floyd, Who, Kinks.

1. To remain qualified, an artist must have at least 5 'essential' albums. I'd be tempted to put a band like Metallica (or your pet band, e.g., Bowie) on such a list, but I'd argue that Metallica has two 'essential' albums (Kill em all, Black Album, & Justice being 'good' albums)
2. The totality of music greatness is the measure
3. Only the music is being examined--not the band's image or aesthetic
4. An 'essential' album can't suck--it has to rock
5. An album sucks when you don't really want to listen to it again despite giving it a go, and you aren't already OD'ed from listening to it a bazillion times. It rocks when at some point all you want to do is listen to it again--more than just 'pretty good'.
6. Great songs on sucky albums still count toward musical greatness, but you need 5 'essential' albums
7. Some songs are just spectacular, and you want to listen to them hundreds of times over your lifetime--these are the pillars of each artist's musical greatness. Songs will get a score that is basically 'amazeballs factor' times 'replayability factor' because sometimes there are really catchy songs that somehow grow stale too quickly. This system will need to be tweaked as I go to do it right. There will be wrinkles--how does My Generation from Live at Leeds (an essential album for sure) get graded when the same song is on another album? But there is some benefit added from the live album...it's complicated. We will figure out something sensible.

For the Kinks and Floyd, what would be the essential albums? I don't know the Kinks, but the internet tells me to begin with:

Kink Kronikles
The Villiage Green Preservation Society
Something Else by The Kinks
Face to Face

What's a 5th?

For Floyd, unless someone objects, I'd definitely go with the Waters era works and eschew Barett, but I could be talked out of this--and I'd pick these:

Dark Side
The Wall
Wish You Were Here
Animals

Is there a 5th? I'm not sure Meddle or Piper at the Gates qualifies, although I'm partial to Piper--I'd be willing to see if the shoe fits.

Apologies for the length, but this project has captured my interest. I'm really enjoying going through these outstanding albums. Listening to Tommy right now, what a great album.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Per Shazam's request, I'm going to open up this controversy to other comers.

The controversy is: "Best rock band from the Album Era"

What I have realized is that to enter this arena, all a band needs is about 4-5 albums with generally strong tracks up and down the roster. This whole thing started because my son is going through this classic rock kind of phase, and Zep is probably his favorite band, so I made him a playlist of all of Zep's work. It occurred to me that they might be the actual best band ever--just song after song after song that was gold. Just now, my first pass through the 'top 6' albums from Stones and Who, I was surprised at the consistency of the Stones albums. The Who as well--these are legit albums. I know it's stupid of me, but better late than never.

So I am a huge Floyd fan, Dark Side is my all time fav, but I'd never really consider them in this conversation because 1) too psychedelic, and 2) inadequate repertoire. But they get a chance in the batters' box.

Then Abe likes the Kinks, and I have a feeling I should look at this.

So, a few rules.

For now, only considering Beatles, Zep, Stones, Floyd, Who, Kinks.

1. To remain qualified, an artist must have at least 5 'essential' albums. I'd be tempted to put a band like Metallica (or your pet band, e.g., Bowie) on such a list, but I'd argue that Metallica has two 'essential' albums (Kill em all, Black Album, & Justice being 'good' albums)
2. The totality of music greatness is the measure
3. Only the music is being examined--not the band's image or aesthetic
4. An 'essential' album can't suck--it has to rock
5. An album sucks when you don't really want to listen to it again despite giving it a go, and you aren't already OD'ed from listening to it a bazillion times. It rocks when at some point all you want to do is listen to it again--more than just 'pretty good'.
6. Great songs on sucky albums still count toward musical greatness, but you need 5 'essential' albums
7. Some songs are just spectacular, and you want to listen to them hundreds of times over your lifetime--these are the pillars of each artist's musical greatness. Songs will get a score that is basically 'amazeballs factor' times 'replayability factor' because sometimes there are really catchy songs that somehow grow stale too quickly. This system will need to be tweaked as I go to do it right. There will be wrinkles--how does My Generation from Live at Leeds (an essential album for sure) get graded when the same song is on another album? But there is some benefit added from the live album...it's complicated. We will figure out something sensible.

For the Kinks and Floyd, what would be the essential albums? I don't know the Kinks, but the internet tells me to begin with:

Kink Kronikles
The Villiage Green Preservation Society
Something Else by The Kinks
Face to Face

What's a 5th?

For Floyd, unless someone objects, I'd definitely go with the Waters era works and eschew Barett, but I could be talked out of this--and I'd pick these:

Dark Side
The Wall
Wish You Were Here
Animals

Is there a 5th? I'm not sure Meddle or Piper at the Gates qualifies, although I'm partial to Piper--I'd be willing to see if the shoe fits.

Apologies for the length, but this project has captured my interest. I'm really enjoying going through these outstanding albums. Listening to Tommy right now, what a great album.

For the Kinks, Kink Kronikles is a compilation album, so of course it's gonna be great, but that's cheating. Here are IMO their 7 best albums in chronological order from 65-71:

-Kink Kontroversy
-Face to Face
-Something Else by The Kinks
-Village Green Preservation Society
-Arthur
-Lola vs Powerman
-Muswell Hillbillies

The 4 bolded are probably essential listens in terms of which are the most popular and highly regarded Kinks albums. I'm having a hard time figuring out which ones you should leave off. Kink Kontroversy is a more standard 60s British rock and roll album, probably the least acclaimed of these. Face to Face is sometimes regarded as the first concept album, and it's generally regarded as the first really good Kinks album. Muswell Hillbillies is the last of their run of great albums, has more of a bluesy/roots rock vibe, so naturally it's maybe my favorite of theirs and the one I prefer over KK and FtF...plus it has a song about Oklahoma. So I'd add that one, but I think you should scan the wiki pages of each and go with whichever sounds more interesting to you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Face_t...e_Kinks_album)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muswell_Hillbillies

As for my two cents on Pink Floyd: I'm not a huge PF fan in general, but I do think Piper at the Gates of Dawn is a great album, so my biases lead me to suggest that as a fifth. Otherwise, I haven't listened to a PF album in years...but I used like like Atom Heart Mother a lot.

I’m curious about a band like U2 under your parameters, Hawg.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I’m curious about a band like U2 under your parameters, Hawg.

Oh ffs.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I’m curious about a band like U2 under your parameters, Hawg.

Same here--and maybe a few other outside worthies like PJ. A college buddy would have argued PJ to the HOF panel. I'm not convinced. But he argued it *hard*.

U2 isn't one of my faves but they seem dead center in the argument. Maybe Fleetwood Mac, but I'm not sure they have enough output. Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers might be a dark horse. Probably someone would suggest Aerosmith. Eagles for sure, and maybe Beach Boys. After that you get into the Police/Metallica/ZZ Top/AC-DC/Queen/Rush set. Radiohead and Pixies maybe. I'd be tempted to make the case for The Pixies like my buddy did Pearl Jam.

U2 is pretty close to the mountaintop. People say their post-2000 releases have been excellent. I wouldn't know.

I could also see adding Eagles to such a list.

Originally Posted by Timmy!

Oh ffs.

Hey I'm not a big U2 guy either, but he's got a point.