Author Topic: The Rolling Stones have more great songs in their catalogue than any other band (Read 5144 times)

bagofeyes · « **on:** February 29, 2008, 12:28:31 AM »

In before a somewhat justified 'The Beatles!' or adolescent 'Radiohead!'

Trent Dole · « **Reply #1 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:35:47 AM »

Beatles are a tad overrated but do indeed have some cool shit. Radiohead have two consistent albums so no, they cannot compete with the Stones.

Robo · « **Reply #2 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:42:57 AM »

There are very few bands who can compete with The Stone's album run of Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street. Nevermind their fantastic earlier albums (Aftermath, Out of Our Heads, Between the Buttons) and their return to form with Some Girls.

Powerslave · « **Reply #3 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:44:07 AM »

97% of Maiden's stuff is at least great.

bagofeyes · « **Reply #4 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:15:28 AM »

Make a thread about music on this forum and you get 3 replies. Make one about some obscure French artist or something and you'll have 50.

Powerslave · « **Reply #5 on:** February 29, 2008, 01:34:11 AM »

Yeah, Himuro/PD/Father Mike threads also seem to garner many replies, though most of them are really boring imo.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #6 on:** February 29, 2008, 03:46:13 AM »

I truly haven't listened to enough Stones to agree. But they definitely have more great songs than the other two you mentioned.

xnikki118x · « **Reply #7 on:** February 29, 2008, 04:19:02 AM »

Stones are good, I prefer The Beatles though.

So do:
Aerosmith
Billy Joel
Elton John
The Eagles
Fleetwood Mac

Ichirou · « **Reply #8 on:** February 29, 2008, 05:09:49 AM »

I like The Stones, but I prefer Supergrass, Pearl Jam, and U2.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and give me shit.

TVC15 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 29, 2008, 05:29:14 AM »

The Stones from 68 to 72 were the greatest blues-based rock band of all time.

xnikki118x · « **Reply #10 on:** February 29, 2008, 05:57:08 AM »

Quote from: Ichi on February 29, 2008, 05:09:49 AM

I like The Stones, but I prefer Supergrass, Pearl Jam, and U2.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and give me shit.

U2!!

Ichi

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #11 on:** February 29, 2008, 06:45:05 AM »

Quote from: TVC 15 on February 29, 2008, 05:29:14 AM

The Stones from 68 to 72 were the greatest blues-based rock band of all time.

Pretty much, yeah. They're pretty awful now though.

bagofeyes · « **Reply #12 on:** February 29, 2008, 06:55:53 AM »

Quote from: Ichi on February 29, 2008, 05:09:49 AM

I like The Stones, but I prefer Supergrass, Pearl Jam, and U2.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and give me shit.

you're the cheebs of music

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #13 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:09:42 AM »

Real winners are the Funk Brothers, obviously.

cloudwalking · « **Reply #14 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:22:52 AM »

the stones rock. my dad has a huge collection of their stuff, but i don't so i haven't listened in a while.

paint it black

satisfaction

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #15 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:27:14 AM »

Sympathy for the Devil

Eric P · « **Reply #16 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:34:53 AM »

i'll agree

i love the song I Miss You.

i have an extended disco mix on vinyl which is great because it just opens up and tears down the walls

Ichirou · « **Reply #17 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:48:40 AM »

Quote from: bagofeyes on February 29, 2008, 06:55:53 AM

Quote from: Ichi on February 29, 2008, 05:09:49 AM
I like The Stones, but I prefer Supergrass, Pearl Jam, and U2.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and give me shit.

you're the cheebs of music

Except I'm not gay!

Phoenix Dark · « **Reply #18 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:33:40 PM »

Zeppelin>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Stones

Let it Bleed

Mupepe · « **Reply #19 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:36:05 PM »

Quote from: bagofeyes on February 29, 2008, 06:55:53 AM

Quote from: Ichi on February 29, 2008, 05:09:49 AM
I like The Stones, but I prefer Supergrass, Pearl Jam, and U2.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and give me shit.

you're the cheebs of music

cheebs is the cheebs of music

Flannel Boy · « **Reply #20 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:45:46 PM »

The Beatles catalog is better, more diverse, and their albums are far more consistent. And the Beatles' studio career was only about eight years long while the Stones have had over forty years to out produce them. If we were to include the Beatles solo work from the early 70's, it wouldn't even be close!

However I would put the Stones just behind the Beatles.

Tauntaun · « **Reply #21 on:** February 29, 2008, 12:52:17 PM »

The stones? More like PASSING A STONE amirite?

....anyone?

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #22 on:** February 29, 2008, 05:29:41 PM »

Quote from: Malek: King of Kings on February 29, 2008, 12:45:46 PM

The Beatles catalog is better, more diverse, and their albums are far more consistent. And the Beatles' studio career was only about eight years long while the Stones have had over forty years to out produce them. If we were to include the Beatles solo work from the early 70's, it wouldn't even be close!

However I would put the Stones just behind the Beatles.

This.

Bloodwake · « **Reply #23 on:** February 29, 2008, 05:32:48 PM »

Beatles, definitely, although I fucking love the Stones.

Raban · « **Reply #24 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:13:10 PM »

Quote from: Tauntaun on February 29, 2008, 12:52:17 PM

The stones? More like PASSING A STONE amirite? ....anyone?

Kill yourself.

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #25 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:34:56 PM »

I really dont like the Rolling Stones

Ichirou · « **Reply #26 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:36:27 PM »

Quote from: dcharlie on February 29, 2008, 07:19:18 PM

Modern music wise, i would like to throw Underworld in for consideration.

Throw out Beneath the Radar (which was basically Underworld 0.1) and you have 15 years of unbelievable music.

Underworld is a Kate Beckinsale movie

MrAngryFace · « **Reply #27 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:48:20 PM »

oh yes

Raban · « **Reply #28 on:** February 29, 2008, 07:52:52 PM »

Quote from: Blanka Face on February 29, 2008, 07:34:56 PM

I really dont like the Rolling Stones

Ichirou · « **Reply #29 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:12:51 PM »

Go USA

Go Underworld film starring Kate Beckinsale

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #30 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:13:37 PM »

The Stone Roses > Rolling Stones

I'm not a huge Beatles fan, but I at least see their appeal.

I have never been able to wrap my head around liking the Rolling Stones.

$:-\$

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #31 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:19:47 PM »

I can't think of a single Rolling Stones song that "rocks." They all sound like geriatric elevator music to me. Well, I like Paint It, Black.

But most of their other hits are just boring to me and I don't get any sense of energy or melody. It's all just a bunch of sleepy notes.

Raban · « **Reply #32 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:22:38 PM »

I can recognize certain Beatles' songs for their greatness. Sgt. Pepper, the entire album, is awesome and While My Guitar Gently Weeps is also good, but The Rolling Stones is a musical phenomenon. They're the creators of the "Fuck you" attitude in musicians. They didn't come to the scene like little pussy elven people lightly waving a limp wrist over their guitars stung up over their waists. They were the first bad boys of rock, and their whole image and musical style supports that.

I'll level with Beatles fans that at least many of the songs The Beatles did were original, whereas The Rolling Stones ended up covering quite a bit of classic material. However, if you wanna see how you cover classic jazz and blues, look to the Stones, because in many cases, The Stones' versions of those jazz and blues songs are like 15,000 times better.

Himu · « **Reply #33 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:28:14 PM »

Rolling Stones suck

Ichirou · « **Reply #34 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:33:50 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 29, 2008, 08:28:14 PM

Rolling Stones suck

Get off the internet and back to drawing that nude chick for the competition.

CajoleJuice · « **Reply #35 on:** February 29, 2008, 08:51:27 PM »

The Stone Roses blow. I've never gotten the love for them. Even playing their song in GH is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Akala · « **Reply #36 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:08:58 PM »

Stones

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Underworld

[close]

Himu · « **Reply #37 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:09:49 PM »

the rolling fegs

Cormacaroni · « **Reply #38 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:15:24 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on February 29, 2008, 08:19:47 PM

I can't think of a single Rolling Stones song that "rocks." They all sound like geriatric elevator music to me. Well, I like Paint It, Black.

But most of their other hits are just boring to me and I don't get any sense of energy or melody. It's all just a bunch of sleepy notes.

TVC15 · « **Reply #39 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:16:40 PM »

Quote from: Himuro on February 29, 2008, 09:09:49 PM

the rolling fegs

I bet Keith Richards could draw a better pair of artsy tits and cunts than you.

pilonv1 · « **Reply #40 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:20:10 PM »

They Might Be Giants have more.

TVC15 · « **Reply #41 on:** February 29, 2008, 09:21:10 PM »

And the Clash have even more. And I am an RS fan, too.

bagofeyes · « **Reply #42 on:** February 29, 2008, 11:04:36 PM »

Quote from: Synthesizer Patel on February 29, 2008, 08:19:47 PM

I can't think of a single Rolling Stones song that "rocks." They all sound like geriatric elevator music to me. Well, I like Paint It, Black.

But most of their other hits are just boring to me and I don't get any sense of energy or melody. It's all just a bunch of sleepy notes.

I would say the reason the Rolling Stones were so good was because of their energy and enthusiasm. If you see old footage of them you can see that they really have a passion for creating it. And no melody and sleepy notes? It's not supposed to be power pop.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #43 on:** February 29, 2008, 11:08:41 PM »

Quote from: dcharlie on February 29, 2008, 10:52:47 PM

Quote
But most of their other hits are just boring to me and I don't get any sense of energy or melody.

... yet you like Radiohead! :run

not really, no. I like The Bends and OK Computer but everything since Kid A has been atonal and downhill

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #44 on:** March 01, 2008, 04:02:40 AM »

Quote

not really, no. I like The Bends and OK Computer but everything since Kid A has been atonal and downhill

"atonal" lol
itt we make fun of patel and his musical ignorance while listening to pierre boulez's second piano sonata

Ichirou · « **Reply #45 on:** March 01, 2008, 04:09:30 AM »

Quote from: recursivelyenumerable on March 01, 2008, 04:02:40 AM

Quote
not really, no. I like The Bends and OK Computer but everything since Kid A has been atonal and downhill

"atonal" lol
itt we make fun of patel and his musical ignorance while listening to pierre boulez's second piano sonata

Not all of us can be musical sexperts!

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #46 on:** March 01, 2008, 11:56:42 AM »

Quote from: recursivelyenumerable on March 01, 2008, 04:02:40 AM

Quote
not really, no. I like The Bends and OK Computer but everything since Kid A has been atonal and downhill

"atonal" lol
itt we make fun of patel and his musical ignorance while listening to pierre boulez's second piano sonata

what! WHAT!

I meant amelodic. or maybe I just have a low definition of "tonal," I mean, I don't think the Rolling Stones fit it

recursivelyenumerable · « **Reply #47 on:** March 01, 2008, 01:24:30 PM »

lots of popular music doesn't really have a tonal center in the same way that common-practice-period Western classical does, but it'd take a lot of gerrymandering to come up with criteria for "tonal/atonal" that'd put OK Computer on one side and HTTT on the other.

Howard Alan Treesong · « **Reply #48 on:** March 01, 2008, 01:26:20 PM »

in that case, let's go with not "crap/crap"

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #49 on:** March 01, 2008, 01:55:10 PM »

I liked In Rainbows enough. *shrugs*

It's no OK Computer, but what is?

And btw, the Kinks are better than the Stones, in general.

bagofeyes · « **Reply #50 on:** March 01, 2008, 02:16:39 PM »

The Kinks were great, and are up there in my favourite bands too. Don't think I'd put them above the Stones, but that would be on my personal preference, not musical ability.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #51 on:** March 01, 2008, 02:27:15 PM »

I don't know, I switch between the two a lot on which I like more. After seeing Hot Fuzz I was in need of a huge Kinks fix. Love them.

Cormacaroni · « **Reply #52 on:** March 01, 2008, 04:40:55 PM »

I personally like more songs from The Who's back catalog, but I'd concede that the Stones have more songs that are both great, are popularly acclaimed and have stood the test of time. Of course, if it hadn't been for Yoko Ono, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. The Beatles' entire recording career could be neatly slotted into the gaps between modern U2 albums.

TakingBackSunday · « **Reply #53 on:** March 01, 2008, 04:47:50 PM »

Ouch

brawndolicious · « **Reply #54 on:** March 01, 2008, 09:02:47 PM »

I don't really care if the beatles did make more in a smaller amount of time because I just don't like their sound.

News:

Author Topic: The Rolling Stones have more great songs in their catalogue than any other band (Read 5144 times)