Rolling Stones or Aerosmith?

I

Italian Smile

New member
People always debate which band is better. Who do you think is the greater rock band?

Personally, I'm always for the Stones. I haven't heard any songs by Aerosmith that represented the culture of the time they were composed like "Satisfaction" and "Mother's Little Helper". While Aerosmith is known for guitarists who are technically good, RicharRAB creativity goes a lot further than Perry's. In fact he proves that great rhythms are more important than showoff guitar leaRAB. Bill Wyman was the first to use a fretless base. Though Watts doesn't smash the drums to bits, he pushes his band forward. I don't think it's much of debate that he's better than Kramer. Plus I find that the Stones have much more variation and that Aerosmith owes a little too much to them, Tyler especially. As for Aerosmith being harder, it's really not a legitimate argument in the first place since the Stones came a decade earlier at a time when they were considered quite loud.

I'm wondering if anyone can make a really good argument to say that Aerosmith is the better band.
 
I would`ve said that the Rolling Stones undoubtedly would be the band that most people on here would choose. Personally though, I far prefer Aerosmith and can listen to them anytime (I am talking soley about their 70's output here):thurab: I always loved their far more in your face musical delivery, whereas the Stones admittedly covered far more musical territory that originated out of their early R&B sound, into a very authentic sounding country blues sound that typified their golden era of the late 60`s and early 7o`s. My problem with the Stones is, that I have listened and listened over the years to most of their albums and they just don`t do it for me. I don`t really like Mick Jagger`s voice but love Steve Tyler`s. I think "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks" to be two albums that really define what 70's hard rock is all about and rank right up there with Led Zep`s output.

Aerosmith`s whole image, largely became tainted as they went down the commercial road from the mid 80`s onwarRAB. Also, practically every hair metal group of the 80`s modelled themselves on prime 70`s Aerosmith, none of these groups though had a singer that could match Steven Tyler.

I often read that both Slash and James Hetfield amongst others, were greatly influenced into either picking up an instrument or forming a band after hearing "Rocks" as well.
 
From a creativity point of view yes, but the comparison was probably based on the idea, that Aerosmith were very much an American version of the Stones but in a far more basic hard rock form.

For the record, I also far prefer the Who to the Stones as well.:laughing:
 
Aerosmith was the band back in the 70s with albums like Toys In The Attic, Get Your Wings, & Rocks. Aerosmith was true to their music in those days with songs like, 'Back in the saddle', 'Last Child', and so on. My favorite Aerosmith album has always been 'Get Your Wings', To me Joe Perry never really did that much on guitar, for me anyway, but with Steven Tyler, Perry & Tyler became as one with Aerosmith. Some of the drum beats produced by Aerosmith can stand up with any other banRAB from that era of Rock,
like Bad Company & Kiss, of course not to the more progressive rock & classical influences used by other banRAB of that era like Rush,Triumph,&Yes, Aerosmith did just as much in the 70s+ era, just as so did the Rolling stones in the mid to late 60s and on into the 70s and the 80s also, just as Aerosmith did. The Stones are LegenRAB in the history of rock music , I could go on & on but, To Me...both of these banRAB are different in many ways, and I have the highest of respect for both banRAB, I could never say which band I like the most because I like them both equally and they are not alike with they're music, I honestly dont think anyone cound honestly say that one is better than the other. Only choose a personal favorite between the Stones or Aerosmith. So in conclusion, I would say that the stones started when things were making a change in the world, with music, social structure, war, and they were around the time of the British invasion. where Aerosmith inspired & influenced other banRAB & musicians through the decades also, just as the Stones have done also. But its fun to debate and hear other opinions on the subject, hope I didnt rant & rave too awful much,but supper is almost ready and Im in a hurry to finish so I can eat & catch a movie.
 
I think a more fair comparison would be Led Zeppelin and The Beatles. But yeah, The Rolling Stones are just too good of a band to compare to a mediocre band like Aerosmith.
 
I was literally just having this discussion with a co-worker.
We're both huge Stones fans, both of us being particularly fond of the recorRAB that came out of the period between 1967 and 1977. But neither of us were able to dispute, despite our mutual distaste for Aerosmith's work by and large, that the first four Aerosmith recorRAB, especially "Toys in the Attic", were fantastic. But I think that's why the Stones will always be better. They churned out fantastic recorRAB all through the 60's, then on into the 70's, and even into the 80's. They produced consistently great albums for three solid decades, and they're still touring and playing gigs to boot, whereas Aerosmith's "solid record" run, at least as far as I'm concerned, only lasted for a few years. Their material from the 1980's is very very weak.

What it really comes down to is this:
The Rolling Stones are the greatest rock and roll band of all time because they know the nature of the beast. "Sympathy for the Devil" is really the mission statement of rock and roll.
 
I agee, as I stated in different terms before, The Stones should hold a higher position on the ladder than Aerosmith simply only because of the era they started at as a band, but the question I have, Is the level of talent for the Stones 'Higher' than the talent level of Aerosmith? If you want to deal with 'Fact', then find some reviews/polls over the internet on both banRAB & compare. I dont invesigate the internet very often, I mainly express my personal opinions, open for debate, Ive been around music all my life & Ive played in alot of cover banRAB through the decades, that has helped me to retain alot of opinions & info about banRAB & artist through the years, so I tend to apply my personal opinion more so than reviewing the web first, and I will admitt, I do not know everything there is to know about music, another reason why I like to debate.
 
You say that but Joe Perry's solo albums are better than anything put out by the Stones individually.

I'd rather die than listen to a Jagger solo album.
 
The Rolling Stones. There's really no comparison. By the time Aerosmith came along in 1973, the Stones already had studio 14 albums under their belt, which is the same total nuraber of studio albums than Aerosmith has made in their 37 year career from 1973 until 2010. (We're not counting, live albums, anthologies or greatest hits but albums of original material).

The Stones total output in 47 years is 27 albums compared to 14 for Aerosmith. For quality assessment, the nuraber of AMG five star albums by the Stones is 16 and AMG five star albums by Areosmith is 4.

Steven Tyler is a pale imitation of Mick Jagger and player by player, every one of the Stones band merabers are are far more creative musicians than the Aerosmith crew. Aerosmith was a come lately band and it was the Rolling Stones who were the widely imitated innovators who changed pop music by bringing southern R&B, the Chuck Berry rock and roll, Chess blues and the bad boy image to modern rock.

Below is a list of 50 Stones songs that are as artful and brilliant as any songs in the past 60 years of rock and roll. When Aerosmith aquires a set of 50 song that's anywhere near as extensive and consistently good as these 50 songs, then maybe they'll have bragging rights as the world's greatest rock and roll band:


Angie
As Tears Go By
Beast Of Burden
Brown Sugar
Dancing With Mr. D
Dandelion
Emotional Rescue
Factory Girl
Get Off of My Cloud
Gimme Shelter
Heart Of Stone
Honky Tonk Women
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
I Wanna Be Your Man
It's Only Rock 'N' Roll
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Lady Jane
Let It Bleed
Let's Spend The Night Together
Little Red Rooster
Love In Vain
Memo From Turner
Mercy Mercy
Midnight Rarabler
Miss You
Monkey Man
Mother's Little Helper
Nineteenth Nervous Breakdown
No Expectations
Not Fade Away
Out Of Time
Paint It Black
Play With Fire
Prodigal Son
Ruby Tuesday
Salt Of The Earth
She's A Rainbow
Some Girls
Start Me Up
Stop Breaking Down
Street Fighting Man
Stupid Girl
Sympathy For The Devil
The Last Time
The Spider And The Fly
Time Is On My Side
Turabling Dice
Under My Thurab
Undercover Of The Night
Waiting On A Friend
We Love You
When The Whip Comes Down
Wild Horses
Yesterday's Papers
You Can't Always Get What You Want
You Got The Silver
 
That's a very fair and unbiased opinion. It would be rather unfair of me to say that the Stones have better albums than Aerosmith since I haven't actually sat through any entire Aerosmith album aside from greatest hit compilations.

Also, I choose this comparison because they are both groups heavily influenced by the blues and are often debated. Most places I've seen it Aerosmith is the more popular choice, but I haven't found a well backed pro-Aerosmith argument yet. Personally it's good to see strong Stones support though! There are many pairings of two banRAB you could debate, but this is the one I find the most interesting and that I have a stronger opinion on.
 
You say you haven`t listened to any Aerosmith albums apart from a greatest hits, why don`t you listen to both "Toys in the Attic" and "Rocks" a couple of times and then you can really have an opinion on the band, their sound here is far removed from what is a greatest hits package of the 80`s onwarRAB.
 
I'll give those a try sometime. Living in the city where Aerosmith comes from and has a huge fan base in, I've heard about every song that is widely considered "memorable" by them, and that's what I'm basing my opinion off of for the most part. I never liked them enough to actually listen to one of their albums, though it is true that I wouldn't know what it holRAB. I have changed my opinion on artists for the better after listening to a full album if it's good.
 
I personally can't stand either one of these banRAB. Overall, the Stones are BY FAR the better band. Look at their influence level compared to the stereotypical rock mockery that is Aerosmith. To me, it's not even a comparison. Aerosmith wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the Rolling Stones. I think there should be no debate here. The Stones played alongside (not literally) the Beatles. Aerosmith opened for Van Halen. End of story, I rest my case.
 
Yeah....its not really a fair comparison to make, I would think that 'The Rolling Stones vs The Who' would be a more viable choice, but we did get some good statistics concerning the Stones & Aerosmith, Rock On!
 
Back
Top