Online Now 3720

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

On this Board 2340
Record: 12118 (3/18/2012)

Online now 3325
Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)

Boards ▾

MSU Red Cedar Message Board

The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web

The Press Box

The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts

Duffy Daugherty Forum

"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion

Jack Breslin Forum

"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion

Wells Hall Off Topic Board

This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion

Marketplace & Ticket Exchange

The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets

Fantasy Sports Forum

For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion

Test/Feedback Forum

Reply

Are tRolling Stones the best band of all-time?

  • steveschneider said...

    Beatles were an incredible live band. Early on they played several sets a day at the Star Club in Germany where they got their chops down and got tight as a band.

    You couldn't get to be a big band back then if you couldn't put on a good live set.

    This.
    The Beatles played a TON of live shows and developed as a band at a very early age. By all accounts, they were an amazing live band in those early days playing clubs in Germany and later in England. Being a great live band is how they got their start.

    I will admit that some of the stadium performances in the US weren't that great. Terrible venues for the time, sound issues, screaming fans, etc.
    There are also not a lot of good recordings of live sets from the early/mid 60's which probably warps people's opinions of them.

    I saw Paul McCartney at Wrigley last summer and he was awesome. The dude can play.

    Phil McCrackin

  • The Beatles basically stopped touring live because of a redneck DJ from Alabama. Their safety was in jeopardy.

    DWAGS likes to pretend the Stones were raunchier, but what band received a country-wide record burning? What band was the real threat according to conservative Christians?

    This post was edited by Howler on 6/18/2012 at 11:04 AM

    Howler

  • Cosmo_Kramer said...

    Zeppelin IV -- 23x platinum

    Wow growing up in the "Napster" generation that is just insane. It is hard to believe that someone like DMX was goin 5X-6X platnium in 99-01.

    signature image

    Eggy

  • arfabe16 said...

    The Beatles weren't that good live, but their songwriting was excellent and they could make themselves sound good in a studio. Also, they stopped touring before a lot of their most famous songs came out, so we never heard them "ruin" them live. John Lennon even used to tell their opening bands not to be too excited about listening to them because "we're not that good live."

    Just off the top of my head, I can name 3 British rock bands that were better live than the Beatles (in chronological order): Rolling Stones, Queen, and Oasis.

    However, The Beatles blow them all away when it comes to comparing their albums.

    Here's an example of The Beatles being just "meh" live:

    John Lennon dies before you were born. You can't judge a performance by YouTube.

    Motown Spartan

  • Phil McCrackin said...

    This. The Beatles played a TON of live shows and developed as a band at a very early age. By all accounts, they were an amazing live band in those early days playing clubs in Germany and later in England. Being a great live band is how they got their start.

    I will admit that some of the stadium performances in the US weren't that great. Terrible venues for the time, sound issues, screaming fans, etc. There are also not a lot of good recordings of live sets from the early/mid 60's which probably warps people's opinions of them.

    I saw Paul McCartney at Wrigley last summer and he was awesome. The dude can play.

    I think they stopped giving an F about playing live. All of their shows became freak shows. You had the incident in the Philippines, you had religious freaks burning piles of their records, tons of death threats, you had people screaming and not even there to listen to the music, the technology sucked...I think ultimately they felt like it didn't even matter what they did on stage, it was just people using them as an excuse to act out. I think all of this took it's toll on their live music.

    signature image

    steveschneider

  • The Doctor said...

    For those of you who disagree, please elaborate on who you would pick.

    I think the earth rotates on its axis listening to the first six Sabbath albums. I understand I am in an overwhelming minority that thinks Sabbath is better than the Stones but please keep in mind I said the Stones are ascending my rankings.

    Big John Studd ●

  • Ever notice Mick Jagger and co. were always hanging around in the Beatles' music videos? (12 second mark) Not so sure it's vice versa.

    Play

    The Beatles - A Day In The Life HD

    The Beatles - A Day In The Life HD http://mozyto.wordpress.com http://twitter.com/mozyto

    http://www.youtube.com/v/4xljFT44Y1Y

    Howler

  • D.Wags said...

    The ROLLING FUCKING STONES have to be in anyones go to shuffle file for a good listen. The stones were the group that blew the doors off of America when they landed and scared the shut out of god fearing parents.

    The beetles were cute and fun the stones were in your face and lord, might I say mixed that Negro music up with rock and roll and the button down parents were beyond shocked.

    The beetles wanted to "hold your hand" the Stones wanted to "be your man" the beatles wanted to "dance with you" the stones wanted to "spend the night with you". Big lips and a crotch on an album. These guys were bad ass and they all could play.

    I hate " best of all time" shit, but the beatles get way to much credit because an engineer figured out tracking for Sargent peppers. They were a very good band average writers average musicians except for George Harrison and below average singers. Give me the Rolling Fucking Stones exile anyday

    I agree with this wholeheartedly. Look, I'm only 27, but I've always preferred the 'Stones to the Beatles. They just have an edge and rock a little harder. In my opinion the best band of all-time is a toss up between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.

    Location: Mumbai, India

    sparty419

  • Pink Floyd.

    End of story.

    Spartans ATTACK

  • Eggy said...

    Wow growing up in the "Napster" generation that is just insane. It is hard to believe that someone like DMX was goin 5X-6X platnium in 99-01.

    It is pretty crazy. It is the third-highest selling album in U.S. history behind "Thriller" and "Eagles Greatest Hits." Zeppelin IV did, of course, have "Stairway to Heaven" on it -- along with "Black Dog" and "Rock and Roll." Not a bad song on that entire album.

    What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...

    Cosmo_Kramer

  • Howler said...

    Ever notice Mick Jagger and co. were always hanging around in the Beatles' music videos? (12 second mark) Not so sure it's vice versa.

    John was at The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus. Several shots of him and Yoko hanging out in the audience as well as performing.

    signature image

    steveschneider

  • Howler said...

    The Beatles basically stopped touring live because of a redneck DJ from Alabama. Their safety was in jeopardy.

    DWAGS likes to pretend the Stones were raunchier, but what band received a country-wide record burning? What band was the real threat according to conservative Christians?

    Partially because of the uproar over the "bigger than Jesus" comments, but also the Beatles stopped touring because they didn't really need to "work" anymore and their concerts were becoming more about celebrity gawking than music. Their equipment sucked and was not up to the task of playing in stadiums, and no one could hear them, nor did people really seem to care that they couldn't hear them.

    There was nothing else like it at the time. There was no point of reference for how they could continue moving forward and playing shows in massive stadiums like that. The security situation was out of control, the crowds were out of control. It's no surprise that these guys were burnt out and just wanted to go to India and drop out of society for a little while...

    Phil McCrackin

  • sparty419 said...

    I agree with this wholeheartedly. Look, I'm only 27, but I've always preferred the 'Stones to the Beatles. They just have an edge and rock a little harder. In my opinion the best band of all-time is a toss up between the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin.

    And Sabbath probably had more hard-rock edge in their sound than the Zeppelin. And Rage Against the Machine more than Sabbath. And so on...

    Never understood how that could be a criteria for liking music, but to each his own.

    Howler

  • Cosmo_Kramer said...

    It is pretty crazy. It is the third-highest selling album in U.S. history behind "Thriller" and "Eagles Greatest Hits." Zeppelin IV did, of course, have "Stairway to Heaven" on it -- along with "Black Dog" and "Rock and Roll." Not a bad song on that entire album.

    Splitting hairs here, but Battle of Evermore is just awful.

    Big John Studd ●

  • For the poster who thought Paul doesn't have a great and versatile voice. Waaaay more masculine than Robert Plant or Mick Jagger.

    Paul could sing any style and pull it off.

    Play

    The Beatles - Why Don't We Do It In The Ro...

    It comes from 'The Whte Album" (Disc 1) "2009 Stereo Remastered"

    http://www.youtube.com/v/977XcnAP9Hw

    Howler

  • How come the Brits are so good at music? Stones, Beatles, Zep, Floyd, Sabbath, Queen, The Who, Black Sabbath, Bowie...for a country roughly the size of Florida that's pretty amazing. Even the city of Manchester has produced more great bands than the entire country of Canada.

    signature image

    steveschneider

  • arfabe16 said...

    The Beatles weren't that good live, but their songwriting was excellent and they could make themselves sound good in a studio. Also, they stopped touring before a lot of their most famous songs came out, so we never heard them "ruin" them live. John Lennon even used to tell their opening bands not to be too excited about listening to them because "we're not that good live."

    Just off the top of my head, I can name 3 British rock bands that were better live than the Beatles (in chronological order): Rolling Stones, Queen, and Oasis.

    However, The Beatles blow them all away when it comes to comparing their albums.

    Here's an example of The Beatles being just "meh" live:

    Please list when you saw the Beatles, the Stones and Queen perform live.

    Spartan Punk

  • Howler said...

    And Sabbath probably had more hard-rock edge in their sound than the Zeppelin. And Rage Against the Machine more than Sabbath. And so on...

    Never understood how that could be a criteria for liking music, but to each his own.

    Well comparing the Rolling Stones to the Beatles, the Stones are a little more rock heavy and the Beatles are a little more pop heavy. I prefer the former. Not all the time, but in this case.

    Thing is, there is no right answer to this question. You could write a 20 page report on how one is better than the other and at the end of the day it's just your opinion.

    Location: Mumbai, India

    sparty419

  • I like the Stones and the Beatles. I don't see why people feel the need to choose one over the other.
    From a live music point of view, the Stones seem to have picked up right where the Beatles left off.

    Phil McCrackin

  • arfabe16 said...
    Just off the top of my head, I can name 3 British rock bands that were better live than the Beatles (in chronological order): Rolling Stones, Queen, and Oasis.

    And UFO in the Schenker era blew any of those away, the most underrated band in history.

    signature image signature image

    LooseGoose2012 ●

  • Big John Studd said...

    Splitting hairs here, but Battle of Evermore is just awful.

    lynchmob

    What is that, a Titleist? A hole in one...

    Cosmo_Kramer

  • Lots of good choices. Led Zeppelin is the one for me.

    LilGiantsRocket

  • I think there are 4 rock bands that are in this conversation...

    Beatles - Best Catalogue (not arguable)
    Stones - Prototypical 'Rock' Band
    U2 - Prototypical Modern 'Rock' Band
    Queen - Best Front Man... sorry Mick

    Honorable mention
    Radiohead, Coldplay & Oasis

    If I made the decision with my head... Beatles.
    If I made the decision with my gut... Queen

    301st Spartan

  • Howler said...

    And Sabbath probably had more hard-rock edge in their sound than the Zeppelin. And Rage Against the Machine more than Sabbath. And so on...

    Never understood how that could be a criteria for liking music, but to each his own.

    What? If you like heavier music why wouldn't it be valid criteria?

    http://www.silentlapse.com

    Thrillho

  • 301st Spartan said...

    I think there are 4 rock bands that are in this conversation...

    Beatles - Best Catalogue (not arguable) Stones - Prototypical 'Rock' Band U2 - Prototypical Modern 'Rock' Band Queen - Best Front Man... sorry Mick

    Honorable mention Radiohead, Coldplay & Oasis

    If I made the decision with my head... Beatles. If I made the decision with my gut... Queen

    Coldplay sucks ass. NTTAWWT.

    Motown Spartan

Michigan State
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports