My friend & I are argue....I say the Beatles & the Rolling stones music is complex, he says no....but I'm not a musician- is he right?
2006-11-04 12:49:12 · 13 answers · asked by Leticia W 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
The music of the Beatles and the Stones is neccessarily NON-complex. Complexity does not sell records, and the whole purpose of rock stardom is to do just that. All of them are/were outstanding musicians in their own right, but catchy riffs and cliched lyrics are what they were all about, and they just happened to do it better than anyone else. If you're looking for complexity in rock music, some of Steely Dan's work is quite amazing as well as the Canadian band, Rush.
"Roll over Beethoven and tell Tchaikovsky the news."
2006-11-04 13:04:04 · answer #1 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a musician... I'll chime in here and offer some clarity perhaps.. (speaking from 35+ years of experience)..
What makes the Stones and the Beatles big stars is the fact that their music is what I like to call Simplistically complicated..... let me clarify.. For percussion.. (which is what I play)... the drummers are both for the most part VERY BASIC.. however VERY Appropriate for the music.. anything MORE.. or LESS simply would NOT work. The guitarists.. (both bass and lead/rhythm)... are also simplistically complicated... meaning that the chord pattern they play are NOT hard to play == Simplistic(even for the the average musician).. what makes them ==Complicated is that they structured their music around Patterns and Hooks that are made of great combinations of chords leading you from one section of a song into another.. Easily... (on the ear)... so that even a non musical ear could appraeciate and understand what they did while it was happening.
Long story short.. IMHO.. NO their music was NOT complex.. (for another musican to replicate)... the Ideas that went into the MAKING of their music WAS... thats why there have only been ONE Beatles.,. and ONE Stones band... I think the longevity of the Stones speaks for it's self.. and IF the Beatles were still together.. I'm Certain they'd still be at the top of the charts.
You'll notice I avoided commenting on the Vocals.. simply because thats a whole other ball of wax. It's what made them Both unique! nuff said.
Just My humble Opine!
2006-11-04 13:03:39 · answer #2 · answered by Jwoo10 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well, it's not that complicated (no offence),
the harmony, rythme, vocal & instrumental techniques and Philosophiccally quite simple, but for Beatles it changes since The Sgt. Pepper album... They've changed into the Psychadelic Rock genre wich is quite complicated (technically and philosophiccally);
while the Rolling Stones are actually only a counterpart of the Beatles, when the Beatles may looks like a good boy with suite and tie, (If they made the same then no one will bought their album doesn't it...), so they became something so much different (to the Beatless and to their begining self), they became a bad boys band....
Hope this will help
2006-11-06 22:44:33 · answer #3 · answered by N-Rue 7 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes and No. I am a musician, and it could be considered complex. I believe that the stones might be a little more technical, but the Beatles are to. There are complex parts in the songs of both artists, but the base of it is completely simple. Hope I helped you.
If you want complex listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Or Phish.
2006-11-04 13:05:10 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm a musician, and no, I don't consider either band's music to be simple. Of course, your opinion depends upon what your definition of "simple" and "complex" are. The Beatles are one of my 2 favorite bands and I played in a Stones tribute band, so you may say I'm a bit biased. I prefer to think that my answer, therefore, has more depth. The Beatles remain the most innovative recording artists to date - George Martin, their producer, no doubt played a role in that coming about...! As for the Stones...? As I got more deeply into their stuff, I came to appreciate the subtle nuances of a splash of piano here, a certain appropriate guitar lick there, and an energy in BOTH bands I could take up writing a book about...! There does exist in both a simplicity that speaks to the heart...
2006-11-04 13:01:50 · answer #5 · answered by KnowhereMan 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
i do no longer think that those are particularly the ten remarkable albums of all time, yet i'm going to objective to make the main suitable checklist i will. wish You have been right here - purple Floyd (the only subject right here became which PF album to decide on) electric powered Ladyland - The Jimi Hendrix adventure (no question right here) Abbey highway - The Beatles (i'd have positioned The White Album if it weren't for Revolution 9) Thick as a Brick - Jethro Tull (One album = one magnificent music, and not making use of a susceptible 2d) memories from Topographic Oceans - sure (4 very distinctive epics, each and each magnificent in that's very own way) Si On Avait Besoin D'Une Cinquieme Saison - Harmonium (4 songs that for the time of good shape completely with the 4 seasons, plus a 5th it is so contemplative and eye-catching) actual Graffiti - Led Zeppelin (The longest Led Zeppelin album = the main suitable Led Zeppelin album, with the aid of fact each music they make is gold) The Snow Goose - Camel (Such effective melodies, so properly built) a nighttime on the Opera - Queen (great unique songs + Freddie Mercury) who's next - The Who (The definition of Rock) BQ: i could by no potential Be a Soldier - Gnidrolog
2016-10-03 07:06:36 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the era. Early Beatles and Stones were "simple," I guess.
But I suggest you tell your friend to go back and review the Beatles and Stones. Even their most "simple" songs are actually amazingly complex. Tell him to listen to "Jumpin' Jack Flash," for instance, and note the stereo separation. The guitars are split left/right - and each is playing a completely different rhythm, but it sounds so fluid all together. Stones songs are full of those subtleties, which no one else can reproduce.
I defy your friend to listen to "Sgt Pepper's" or The White Album or "Abbey Road" and tell you the Beatles were SIMPLE. The production, instrumentation, arranging, and writing were all virtually supernatural.
He's a musician and says these things? What does he listen to?
Love Jack
2006-11-04 13:31:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
The Stones & Beatles started as Blues bands so a lot of their work is simple 3 chord 12 bar Blues! But as they progressed so did their music!
http://www.willyblues.com/
2006-11-04 12:55:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Beatles used a much more sophisticated kind of harmony than had been used up until then. Nevertheless, the music wasn't terribly complicated.
2006-11-04 12:56:00 · answer #9 · answered by langdonrjones 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, in terms of the actual music, I would say it is pretty simple. This does not mean its bad though.
2006-11-04 12:52:00 · answer #10 · answered by afterthought 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋