The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles

volt9stormrider · #1 07-27-2007, 03:10 PM

IMO, this is a classic rivalry and is a great topic to be debated upon. Feel free to express your thoughts and/or vote on the poll. Personally, I cannot chose between the two, because they have varying styles and are two great music legends.

davetakis · #2 07-27-2007, 03:14 PM

i dont feel that the beatles ever had a bad song or a bad period. the stones released "emotional rescue." 'nuff said.
there are 3 types of stones fans. if you say the rolling stones and someone answers:

1]mick jagger-they only listen to the greatest hits

2]keith richards-the listen to deep catalog and probably are a musician.

3]brian jones-everything after 1968 is crapola.

i am #3 [with minor exceptions]

Eublet · #3 07-27-2007, 03:18 PM

Based on what criteria? Listening preference?

The Beatles have had way more influence. Probably wouldn't have been any Rolling Stones otherwise. Of course, the Stones have had great influence themselves. To me, the Beatles prooved they could do more musically than the Stones, and with a different variety of styles.

If I HAD to pick one or die, I'd pick the Beatles.

Juneau · #4 07-27-2007, 03:18 PM

Not even a contest here....

afinalfantasy · #5 07-27-2007, 03:21 PM

Beatles, easily

The Stones never did anything for me

Baryonyx · #6 07-27-2007, 03:24 PM

The Beatles, the Stones have always just been a lame rock band to me.

i_got_a_mohawk · #7 07-27-2007, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otso

+1

Sure they are important and all that, but man do they both suck.

+1

The Who was where it was at!

Baryonyx · #8 07-27-2007, 03:32 PM

I like the Beatles but The Who probably rank as one of the worst bands I've ever heard in my life!

volt9stormrider · #9 07-27-2007, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eublet

Based on what criteria? Listening preference?

well I would base it just upon listening preference, but you can be more critical and base it on talent and, style, or whatever you want.

I started it out originating it on what band you like better, so I guess you can use your own terms.

davetakis · #10 07-27-2007, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

+1

The Who was where it was at!

well yeah, but that wasnt a choice. i would have said the who also.

Rattman · #11 07-27-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by afinalfantasy

Beatles, easily

The Stones never did anything for me

I'm on this same page. I've never purchased a single Rolling Stones LP, tape or CD.. where as on the Beatles, I've love to own their entire catalog and might someday.

MysticMichael · #12 07-27-2007, 05:01 PM

This was a much more significant - and common - question & debate 40 years ago, back in the day when both bands were still going strong. Beatles fans and Stones fans are generally coming from pretty different places, culturally and aesthetically. There aren't too many people who are way into both of them...

Count me among the former - but not the latter. The Stones wish they had the Beatles prolific creativity (and frequently have wished it). Not gonna happen. Beatles by a country mile...

MM

Spector_Ray · #13 07-27-2007, 05:04 PM

The Stones have had a lot of classic songs and a few good modern ones, but IMHO, The Beatles never had a bad song. They were truly revolutionary for their time.

JimmyM · #14 07-27-2007, 05:14 PM

Ya, the Stones had a lot of bad songs. Their good ones were as good as anything ever written, but I can count on one hand the bad Beatles songs. "Yes It Is," "Blue Jay Way," maybe one other were truly bad songs. The Beatles had the good sense to ditch their bad songs.

deaf pea · #15 07-27-2007, 05:34 PM

The Beatles had Paul, who's definitely a MASTER/monster bassist (in MANY styles) . . . but they were too cute, with all that "pop-star" BS . . .

But the Stones had something special . . . they were a "blues band" more than a "pop band" or a "rock band" . . . and they just seemed more REAL!

Ya' gotta' remember that I was 20 years old in 1965, in the midst of it all, already a "professional" musician, having joined the Musician's Union in 1960 . . .

So my vote goes for the Rolling Stones.

BTW, I saw the Stones live last year and LOVE all of the Paul McCartney live DVD's that I've got, too . . . I hope to see him (PM) in person the next time he's in Mexico City (his drummer is the nephew of a friend of mine, Johnny Laboriel) . . .

Mojo-Man · #16 07-27-2007, 05:45 PM

The Beatles.
Hands down.

They were bigger than anything in the 60's.
The Stones have longevity.
But, never had the sheer number of great songs.

Plus Paul kicked butt as a bassist. (Bill who)

Dan Molina · #17 07-27-2007, 05:52 PM

Beatles no doubt about it. I can't stand The Stones (Except Paint it Black).

peaveyuser · #18 07-27-2007, 06:13 PM

hands down the Stones they're my favorite band (well kinda tied with Zeppelin).I just listen to Sympathy For The Devil, Jumpin Jack Flash, Paint It Black and I'm totally into it. The Beatles are good too but I find a lot of there stuff more "pop-ish" the Stones had better riffs and were more of a "band" opposed to a "group" IMO. It weren't for the Stones i wouldn't be into the music I am now and probably wouldn't be playin bass.

MirageBass · #19 07-27-2007, 07:03 PM

The Beatles. I never saw what anybody liked in the rolling stones.

Spector_Ray · #20 07-27-2007, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MirageBass

The Beatles. I never saw what anybody liked in the rolling stones.

Well, I wouldn't say that. Shelter Me and Can't You Hear Me Knockin' are probably my two favorites. The Stones were the flip side of The Beatles in that they were a lot more raw and bluesy. I'm still voting for The Beatles.