Well after weighing in on the Sabbath vs. Led Zepp thread it made me wonder where people stand on this one...
My Vote is for the Beatles..
My Vote is for the Beatles..
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Beatles or Stones?
- Thread starter Snakeman1066
- Start date
I voted for the Beatles, because they had John Lennon, not to mention Paul, George and Ringo.
But you can't go wrong with either one.
Weren't the Stones the Beatles' favorite band?
But you can't go wrong with either one.
Weren't the Stones the Beatles' favorite band?
Actually, if your poll had been the Beatles vs ANY band, or any TEN bands, or possibly ALL the other bands, I might've STILL picked the Beatles.
Every time someone says the Beatles were "overrated," a tiny piece of our collective souls die.
Every time someone says the Beatles were "overrated," a tiny piece of our collective souls die.
both great - a tie IMO. The Stones could not have produced Revolver or Rubber Soul, but the Beatles could not have produced Sticky Fingers or Exile on Main Street.
I voted for the Moptops, the Fab Four, the group whose drummer "has a hole in me pocket" (and blisters on his fingers), and whose bass player is the Walrus.
IMO, their level of musicianship and creativity trumps the Stones by a long shot, but that's just my humble opinion.
IMO, their level of musicianship and creativity trumps the Stones by a long shot, but that's just my humble opinion.
Seriously, tough choice - blues vs pop. BUT, the Beatles set it up for all of us. Hard to find a most diverse bands ever, from the moment they arrived in '63 to the departure in '69. They covered it all: each album stands on its own merit totally different and unique. They're the only band I know of that took it all in 6 years. From the strip clubs in Germany to Knighthood.
The Stones followed the Beatles, Zep followed the Beatles, the Beach Boys followed the Beatles. They set it up for the world. Music will never ever see anything like it again.
The Stones followed the Beatles, Zep followed the Beatles, the Beach Boys followed the Beatles. They set it up for the world. Music will never ever see anything like it again.
Ric5
Inactive
- Jan 29, 2008
- 29,772
- 30,452
- Disclosures
- I like 5, 8, 10, and 12 string basses
Put Mick Jagger in the Beatles and he would be the 5th best vocalist just behind Ringo, and Mick would also be the worst dancer.
fixed it for ya...don't thank me...no charge
oh, and, of course...the Beatles...the stones WERE great (emphasis on the "were"), but the Beatles were the GREATEST.
every album a winner, every song a masterpiece....there will never be another Beatles.
"Deep in the jungle where the mighty tiger lies...Bill and his elephant were taken by surprise"
Both great in their own right. I picked the Beatles though because of their vocal variety. While John and Paul sang most of the leads, George sang quite a few, and even Ringo on occasion. Stones always had a great groove, but vocally it was pretty much "All Mick, all the time"...
Both good bands, but I'd have to say the Beatles. If for nothing else, they seem to be more important in the history of music than the Stones were. However, I do enjoy a good Stones song.
More like Brian Wilson.
Yeah, I was gonna say...if anything, The Stones were Beatle fanboyz.
Jagger & Jones used to hang out with them, right?
SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
I obviously love my Beatles but I'm so glad for the Stones for being the anti-Beatles band and really pushing the Beatles and pushing Rock & Roll to hard edge glory in my opinion the two best bands of that era.
