Rolling Stones or Aerosmith?

[coykiesaol]

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, Richards creativity goes a lot further than Perry's. In fact he proves that great rhythms are more important than showoff guitar leads. 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.

[NordChord]

I will definitely have to say Rolling Stones! Even though Aerosmith are great and still continue to rock to this day.

[kevin316]

no disrespect to aerosmith but their not even in the same league

[buku]

both of them

[Roo Stercogburn]

no disrespect to aerosmith but their not even in the same league

Pretty much this. Aerosmith have a few good tunes and a lot that sound the same. Stones redefined rock music back in their day.

Both put on a great show

[emz89]

i wouldn't even compare the two, both bands fill completely different niches! the stones have, however, reached a level of their own

[Simonbrew]

rolling stones for sure