The Kinks - better than the Rolling Stones

[The Gentleman Scamp]

The kinks are good but the stones are far more prolific.

I am more prolific than you, does that make be better?

[bkkmadness]

Yeah with the Stones you get the albums, with The Kinks a compilation will do. Don't think they ever made a classic album did they?

Would definitely say they did more than one album worth of good songs though.

[Blake7]

^^ probably as a teakdoor member. Congratulations scampy!

[pluto]

The Stones are by far the superior band. The way they incorporated Blues and revitalised it...Albums such as Exile on Main Street and Sticky fingers are revolutionary. I do admire the Kinks but to compare the two is totally absurd. As a musician one can admire the penmanship of the Jagger/Richards collaboration. Keith Richards has a unique approach to playing guitar always playing around the beat and using the "G" tuning mainly. They also broke down the walls of lead and rhythm guitar playing by interweaving guitar parts. They must be seen live to be fully appreciated....some may say they are way past their due date and I must agree that their latest offerings over the last 15 yrs has not been up to par but having seen them live they could still blow most bands off stage.....Lets' be honest they really do not need to tour anymore but still do....for the passion...where are the Kinks now....case closed!

[Gordy]

kinks r good rollig stones r fucking good too

[friscofrankie]

Fuck me. The kinks had a few good tunes. Not that many, mostly POP pap. The stones were a first rate Bar band. The kinks tried to be more, but failed. I enjoyed a few of their ditties. but hardly edgy or even rock 'n roll.

Kinks: 2 (maybe 3)
Stones: Who knows how many? dozens. you ever listen to little red rooster? love in vain? ruby tuesday? Sympathy for the devil? Brown Sugar?

The kinks had a few good tunes; for the most part, they basically sucked. They tried to copy the weirdness of the Beatles and they tanked. The beatles sucked anyway. Fuckin Stones rocked, good ol rhythm & blues. Bands like the kinks tried to be "Trippy" without understanding what "trippy" really was. The kinks were posers, they happened on a couple of decent hits anyway.

The Kinks, a second rate band trying to be the second coming of The Beatles, a band not worth the time to discuss.
Thing is, even back before your time, when the Kinks hit the market they were touted and recognized as a group to pick up where the Beatles left off. The beatles were "NEW!" Paul McCartney was a fuckin wimp. John lennon an asshole. The Kinks had none of that chemistry and No originality. They were just Whimpy Brit boys tryin to cash n on the so-called "British invasion."

I've got to believe that all your recent Musical threads are nothing but trolls, I have tried to resist. But if your recent trolls leave any indication as to your Musical leanings;

You don't know shit about good music.

[Carnwadrick]

"Ray Davis" thanks CMN you got a younger brain and better memory

[sabang]

^ Ray Davies actually.

[Gambler]

Originally Posted by Blake7

The kinks are good but the stones are far more prolific. The kinks did perhaps one albums worth of good songs. The Stones did several.
In fact it is the albums rather than individual singles/songs which makes the stones so great.

The Kinks had several great albums actually. "Face to Face", "Something Else" and "Village Green Preservation Society" are all rated as 5-star (essential) albums by Rolling Stone magazine.

[Blake7]

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

Fuck me. The kinks had a few good tunes. Not that many, mostly POP pap. The stones were a first rate Bar band. The kinks tried to be more, but failed. I enjoyed a few of their ditties. but hardly edgy or even rock 'n roll.

Kinks: 2 (maybe 3)
Stones: Who knows how many? dozens. you ever listen to little red rooster? love in vain? ruby tuesday? Sympathy for the devil? Brown Sugar?

The kinks had a few good tunes; for the most part, they basically sucked. They tried to copy the weirdness of the Beatles and they tanked. The beatles sucked anyway. Fuckin Stones rocked, good ol rhythm & blues. Bands like the kinks tried to be "Trippy" without understanding what "trippy" really was. The kinks were posers, they happened on a couple of decent hits anyway.

The Kinks, a second rate band trying to be the second coming of The Beatles, a band not worth the time to discuss.
Thing is, even back before your time, when the Kinks hit the market they were touted and recognized as a group to pick up where the Beatles left off. The beatles were "NEW!" Paul McCartney was a fuckin wimp. John lennon an asshole. The Kinks had none of that chemistry and No originality. They were just Whimpy Brit boys tryin to cash n on the so-called "British invasion."

I've got to believe that all your recent Musical threads are nothing but trolls, I have tried to resist. But if your recent trolls leave any indication as to your Musical leanings;

You don't know shit about good music.

But when the Stones went "trippy" it was pretty crap - "on their Satanic Majexty's Request" for instance.

Looking forward to that Stones "Shine a Light" concert movie which should be out soon.