Thread: Stones vs. Beatles

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

I’d agree that a lot of their music is more akin to folk and classical than rock, but they were a rock band. Much of Revolver and Rubber Soul was just straight up folk music, for example.

This is getting complicated.

Originally Posted by GEM

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.

I'd listen to every Floyd song available before putting together a 10 song Playlist of the Beatles and the stones combined...

The Gilmour-led Floyd deserves some mention, touring into the 90s. Huge tours and massive sets. Gilmour and Waters still go individually covering their own works in the last 5 years.

So even they have more time than the Beatles, and I also think that as farcas pure musicianship, Gilmour and Waters are very unappreciated.

I know they're not the pioneers and I'd concede that with The Beatles. But IMO they're eclipsed by the Stones Floyd Zep Who

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

This is getting complicated.

Look, man, no one wants to live by strict boundaries, man. Like, I reject these societal restrictions your placing on musical genres, man.

Originally Posted by Shazam!

The Gilmour-led Floyd deserves some mention

Learning to Fly was a good song. Momentary Lapse of Reason tried too hard to be Pink Floyd, and that's a huge mistake w/o Roger Waters, a big part of Pink Floyd. As much as I love Gilmour's contribution as a musician, his post-Waters and solo stuff was too inconsistent.

Originally Posted by MOtorboat

Look, man, no one wants to live by strict boundaries, man. Like, I reject these societal restrictions your placing on musical genres, man.

Fine. Let's tear down the adjectives, and maybe even some monuments, too.

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

if y'all wanna kill some time

https://www.ranker.com/list/top-4-al...re_/hawgdriver

All we are saying is give Kinks a chance.

You should still check out their 6 or so good albums. I'm interested to see what you think. Plus Waterloo Sunset is highly regarded as one of the greatest compositions in the English language. They are better than The Who, and Pete Townshend has said how much they influenced him. Get on it. Follow along with the lyrics. When people think of them they just think of You Really Got Me, but that's really not who they are.

The Beatles are a rock and roll band that played with the genre more than any other band on that list, which is what made then the innovators that they were.

Also you put Eagles and U2 albums on there but no Kinks or Ramones or The Clash? Wtf. Abort mission.

Originally Posted by aberdien

The Beatles are a rock and roll band that played with the genre more than any other band on that list, which is what made then the innovators that they were.

Also you put Eagles and U2 albums on there but no Kinks or Ramones or The Clash? Wtf. Abort mission.

I just need 4 killer albums. It's not a big ask. You gave me that for Kinks but Arthur just doesn't show up in Ranker. Nor does the next one. The Clash has London Calling, and you can put that along with Rumours and Ziggy Stardust, etc., but 4 albums of similar dense badassery? Let me hear about it.

We are talking the Mozarts of our era, not the Salieris.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threa...others.238624/

https://petetownshend.net/news/pete-...ersary-box-set

"In British rock, Ray Davies is our only true and natural genius."

“The Kinks were . . . quintessentially English. I always think that Ray Davies should one day be Poet Laureate. He invented a new kind of poetry and a new kind of language for Pop writing that influenced me from the very, very, very beginning.”

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

I just need 4 killer albums. It's not a big ask. You gave me that for Kinks but Arthur just doesn't show up in Ranker. Nor does the next one. The Clash has London Calling, and you can put that along with Rumours and Ziggy Stardust, etc., but 4 albums of similar dense badassery? Let me hear about it.

We are talking the Mozarts of our era, not the Salieris.

I'm confused your criteria. Why d'you have Jimi Hendrix, Van Halen, and Boston on there?

I am skeptical that The Eagles have 1 killer album, much less 4.

I also don't understand this ranker website, but according to this list it has all of em.

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-the...nce?ref=search

I'm not saying you gotta add the Kinks on there. I'm just saying...The Eagles?!?!?!

Originally Posted by aberdien

I'm confused your criteria. Why d'you have Jimi Hendrix, Van Halen, and Boston on there?

I am skeptical that The Eagles have 1 killer album, much less 4.

Because, like Mozart, their brand stuck.

Hotel California belongs for sure. Everyone has different tastes, but in general, you can't strike Hotel California.

Hotel California - all time great song. Period.
New Kid in Town - Best use of electric piano tones in a pop song, great song-story, just an A+ song
Fast Lane - decent rocker, didn't age that well but hell it's been played a lot
Wasted Time + Reprise - a very good song

and that's just the crappy A-side. Saying Hotel CA isn't among the type of albums that have all-timer heft just says that you don't happen to like their music. Which is cool.

Well I hope the Kinks are as good as all that. Coach was right about The Who--not that they are better than Stones or whatever, but they deserve to be in the conversation. I hope you are right about The Kinks.

Eagles? Here is what it is going to come down to--what do you think about Desperado? It's more of a hunch that they belong (like U2) than a statement.

I'll entertain Tom Petty, Prince, whoever else has a strong 4 LP showing.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I also don't understand this ranker website, but according to this list it has all of em.

https://www.ranker.com/list/best-the...nce?ref=search

I'm not saying you gotta add the Kinks on there. I'm just saying...The Eagles?!?!?!

fixed

Originally Posted by Hawgdriver

Because, like Mozart, their brand stuck.

Hotel California belongs for sure. Everyone has different tastes, but in general, you can't strike Hotel California.

Hotel California - all time great song. Period.
New Kid in Town - Best use of electric piano tones in a pop song, great song-story, just an A+ song
Fast Lane - decent rocker, didn't age that well but hell it's been played a lot
Wasted Time + Reprise - a very good song

and that's just the crappy A-side. Saying Hotel CA isn't among the type of albums that have all-timer heft just says that you don't happen to like their music. Which is cool.

Well I hope the Kinks are as good as all that. Coach was right about The Who--not that they are better than Stones or whatever, but they deserve to be in the conversation. I hope you are right about The Kinks.

Eagles? Here is what it is going to come down to--what do you think about Desperado? It's more of a hunch that they belong (like U2) than a statement.

I'll entertain Tom Petty, Prince, whoever else has a strong 4 LP showing.

I am not an Eagles hater. They've got some great songs. The country-rock vibe is my jam.

I'd argue neither The Eagles nor Tom Petty have 4 albums good enough to hang. TP has a couple for sure, but 4 of the quality of RS, Beatles, Who, Led Zep? Nah, I doubt it.

If this is a cream of the crop thing, there can be no room for the slightest bit of mediocrity!

Prince has 2 GOAT albums and a few maybe good-great ones, but I don't know if there's 4 together that are of the quality mentioned above.

Originally Posted by aberdien

I am not an Eagles hater. They've got some great songs. The country-rock vibe is my jam.

I'd argue neither The Eagles nor Tom Petty have 4 albums good enough to hang. TP has a couple for sure, but 4 of the quality of RS, Beatles, Who, Led Zep? Nah, I doubt it.

If this is a cream of the crop thing, there can be no room for the slightest bit of mediocrity!

For me, that list would be Beatles, Zep, Floyd, Stones, and Who.

And in some approaches, I agree that my intuition and Bayesian inferences about the structure of the rock and roll universe are inviolate.

But this time I'm approaching it like, 'hey, I can see four bright stars in the vernal cosmos--but--maybe I've ignored the hibernal universe?'