Are you a Rolling Stone or a Beatle? POLL

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.

The Rolling Stones or the Beatles- who do you think is better?

The Rolling Stones
5
24%
The Beatles
16
76%
 
Total votes: 21

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Question to Vader. Why do you have to refer to Beatles tonal consistency according to a modern setting? Why do you have to think about Beatles in a modernistic way?

Another question. How can you make a difference between these bands if you're only acknowledging parts of someone's success?

Another question. Doesn't the fact that the Beatles and Rolling Stones are still huge this day say a lot about their tonal consistency? Also... do you think Radiohead will have the same impact as The Beatles 30 years from now? I personally doubt it.

Another question. How many worldwide HITS that shook the world Radiohead had? :) How many Beatles?

Another question. If you consider Radiohead better than the Beatles because they influenced music so many times by delivering sounds no one ever knew before... then why Jean Michele Jarre wouldn't be better than Radiohead? Why Pink Floyd wouldn't be better than Radiohead? You do realize that Radiohead's contribution to music is far less important than JMJ's for example. It's not even comparable if you talk about the invention of certain sounds.

User avatar
Posts: 42894
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:Any thoughts?

-Vader
Nice analysis but just because their music may sound consistent it does not mean they are not easily better than Radio Head. The Beatles have so many incredible songs and albums (Far more than Radiohead IMO) that it does not really matter how consistent their musics sounds. The cultural impact The Beatles have had is not comparable to any band or artist out there and that is not even an opinion. People to this day young and old still love The Beatles and that speaks volumes how impacting their music was and it will never fade away. I am not a huge Stones fan (they are great of course) but I love Radio Head as well, so I am not going to partake in that section.
Last edited by Allstar on March 25th, 2012, 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
And on top of their cultural impact... how can Vader say that Beatles didn't had any range? Did he actually listened to all their albums? They changed styles so many times and came with something new with each album.

User avatar
Posts: 22456
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
Backstreet Boys
Why you lurking my page brah?

Posts: 18329
Joined: February 2011
RIFA wrote:And on top of their cultural impact... how can Vader say that Beatles didn't had any range? Did he actually listened to all their albums? They changed styles so many times and came with something new with each album.
The same went for The Rolling Stones. They enjoyed combining melodies from different genres of music to create new and interesting sounds. Often people disagree with that, but it's true.

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Mason wrote:
RIFA wrote:And on top of their cultural impact... how can Vader say that Beatles didn't had any range? Did he actually listened to all their albums? They changed styles so many times and came with something new with each album.
The same went for The Rolling Stones. They enjoyed combining melodies from different genres of music to create new and interesting sounds. Often people disagree with that, but it's true.



I just got the first things I saw on youtube... Jesus they sounded the same. :( LOL

I guess Vader loves too much the MODERN sound of Radiohead that he isn't able to be OBJECTIVE about the differences between these bands.

User avatar
Posts: 20086
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Mason wrote:I don't understand why you said I'd only read it if I was "feeling generous". :lol:
Because it's long and nobody ever responds to my longer posts, haha.
RIFA wrote:Question to Vader. Why do you have to refer to Beatles tonal consistency according to a modern setting? Why do you have to think about Beatles in a modernistic way?

Another question. How can you make a difference between these bands if you're only acknowledging parts of someone's success?

Another question. Doesn't the fact that the Beatles and Rolling Stones are still huge this day say a lot about their tonal consistency? Also... do you think Radiohead will have the same impact as The Beatles 30 years from now? I personally doubt it.

Another question. How many worldwide HITS that shook the world Radiohead had? :) How many Beatles?

Another question. If you consider Radiohead better than the Beatles because they influenced music so many times by delivering sounds no one ever knew before... then why Jean Michele Jarre wouldn't be better than Radiohead? Why Pink Floyd wouldn't be better than Radiohead? You do realize that Radiohead's contribution to music is far less important than JMJ's for example. It's not even comparable if you talk about the invention of certain sounds.
I gotta get back to studying, so this'll be my last post here probably.

1.) I don't necessarily think of it in a modernist way, it's just that the slight variations in tonal quality aren't that creative in a broader context. They're still slight variations, regardless of when it was made, people just may not have realizes it at the time. I'm a firm believer that timeless, iconic works can't ever seem too conventional just because time's gone by. Godfather, Blade Runner, 2001, etc.

2.) I don't think I am, I'm merely mentioning that in passing.

3.) Not really, and there's a bunch of societal reasons for that. Most artists that sell the most records are as typical as they come, unconventionality is a much tougher sell, which is why it's so impressive RH and Trent have been as successful as they have been, their music isn't nearly as accessible per the musical norms at the time of release. The Beatles/Stones' music is catchy and melodic with a lot of classical music theory in there too because they're such wonderfully gifted musicians, the songwriting itself wasn't what was unconventional about them (usually), it was just amazing. I don't think RH will have had the same impact, but they'll probably get as close as any other band from this generation.

4.) Dunno, but this goes back to a previous point.

5.) I'm not necessarily measuring it that way. Plus, tons of Pink Floyd sounds pretty similar anyway. I'm surprised nobody brought them up sooner, I know a lot more people in general who try to argue this about them than Beatles/the Stones. It's undeniable other musicians have invented more sounds, but I've heard little music that can release single songs or albums that carry the emotional and thematic complexity of Kid A, for instance. It's how its assembled as much as the innovation, or innovation through how its assembled and presented.

To the last couple comments after Rifa's post- I've definitely heard most of both artist's albums, some quite a few times. I'm personally not a huge fan of each but that's because it's just not my style, not their objective merits (which as I've said, are huge), but a lot of my high school friends were. They seem like slight variations compared to the massive variation of some modern artists, Radiohead especially, whose sound literally transforms album by album (except for Hail to the Thief obviously). That strikes me much more as a showcase of creative and technical talent than the other music.

What do you mean the modern sound? I don't really like Pablo Honey or The Bends, but they were singular enough, but from OK Computer onwards, their sound changed totally with each record, in a way Talli would describe as checkov, haha. The actual songwriting style itself changes dramatically, instrument usage dramatically, if you didn't have Thom singing, you would have no clue it was the same band for a lot of it.

Lastly, they have massive discographies, it goes without saying their 'top ten' songs wouldn't sound similar. I'm obviously talking in general.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 22456
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
Music is subjective. The End
Why you lurking my page brah?

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Vader182 wrote:not their objective merits (which as I've said, are huge)
But you just said that objectively Radiohead is far better than both bands.

And if Radiohead are objectively FAR better than the Beatles and Rolling Stones... how is it that Radiohead barely makes way in most top 100 bands/artists of all time? :lol: :lol: The highest on any list Radiohead got was on VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of all Time.
29 Radiohead
28 Elton John
27 Aretha Franklin
26 Neil Young
25 Chuck Berry
24 The Velvet Underground
23 AC/DC
22 The Clash
21 Bruce Springsteen
20 Marvin Gaye
19 U2
18 Pink Floyd
17 Queen
16 Madonna
15 The Beach Boys
14 Nirvana
13 The Who
12 David Bowie
11 Bob Marley
10 Stevie Wonder
09 James Brown
08 Elvis Presley
07 Prince
06 Jimi Hendrix
05 Bob Dylan
04 Rolling Stones
03 Led Zeppelin
02 Michael Jackson
01 The Beatles
:lol:

On top of that... they almost have no songs in any top 100 best songs of all time and about 2-3 in any top 500 best songs of all time. LOL :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 8049
Joined: October 2011
Location: Chungking Mansions
I like The Beatles better. Just prefer their music, aesthetic etc Stones are pretty cool though.

Revolver is my favourite Beatles album, amazing stuff on that one.


EDIT:

And I like Radiohead more than both of them.
Do you... like pineapple?

Post Reply