• 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?

Beatles or Rolling Stones

  • Beatles

    Votes: 242 70.8%

  • Rolling Stones

    Votes: 62 18.1%

  • Carrots

    Votes: 38 11.1%
  • Total voters
    342
  • Poll closed .
#182
Bassmanbob said:
I wonder what the numbers would be at a guitar based website. I never considered The Beatles an in-your-face guitar band. I think The Rolling Stones are generally considered more guitar friendly or more guitar centered.

I still think The Beatles would lead but by a much smaller percent. I have no idea; just a thought.
Click to expand...

I'm a guitarist, and I've read similar debates on many guitar websites. The Beatles always win, although it's often more close a vote than here. For me, it's all about the songs - so the Beatles get my vote. Besides, George Harrison was a fantastic guitarist - very much underrated.
 
#186
Yes, indeed. I was 10 in 1967, and I clearly remember a girl I liked telling me that she used to like the Beatles, but that she now knew that the Monkees were better. (Herman's Hermits were also contenders.)

Even then, I knew that she had the musical taste and knowledge of someone about 9 years younger... but I still liked her, anyway.
 
#189
My first memories of anything musical that I can still see in my head today is the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.
The first time I was 2 1/2 and my mom said I just stood in front of the TV and didn't move a muscle.

Of course, the Beatles top out any other band I can think of just for shear innovation.

The guitars for the time were top notch. Way better than stones stuff. Hell, they even had their own chords.
Always liked McCartney's music much more than Lennons.
 
#190
Early on it was the Stones for me for several reasons.

Girls liked The Beatles. Liked isn't a strong enough term. I detested the hordes of shrieking crying girls. Their music was soft.

The Beatles were kind of hippie which didn't get a lot of traction where I grew up. Anti war was ok but the rest? Naw

While your parents might not approve of The Beatles, Mick was terrifying. But as scary as Mick was little did the parents know there was something louder, faster and ever more horrifying just over the horizon....... Hey! Ho! Let's Go!

Took many years before I went back and developed an appreciation for The Beatles
 
#191
Stones hands down. The Beatles were the fist boy band IMO and did like what 3 years of live shows and the rest were drippy trippy studio albums?

The Stones were rockers and spit into the wind. They are one of the few bands ever who can do it all rock, jazz , pop,disco,country ,blues.. and do it well. Listen to the Some Girls album that has 5 types of music on it from rock,motown ,punk country and blues.
Also the Stones had a frontman and IMO the best in rock ever. Watch a Beatles video of them playing live ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

But last but not least 50 years of rockin for the Stones the original bad boys of rock...Beatles cant touch them here.
 
#192
bassbully said:
Stones hands down. The Beatles were the fist boy band IMO and did like what 3 years of live shows and the rest were drippy trippy studio albums?

The Stones were rockers and spit into the wind. They are one of the few bands ever who can do it all rock, jazz , pop,disco,country ,blues.. and do it well. Listen to the Some Girls album that has 5 types of music on it from rock,motown ,punk country and blues.
Also the Stones had a frontman and IMO the best in rock ever. Watch a Beatles video of them playing live ZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

But last but not least 50 years of rockin for the Stones the original bad boys of rock...Beatles cant touch them here.
Click to expand...

Glad you are such a fan! :hyper:

Fortunately, for the Stones and you, that "ZZZZZZZZZZZZ, drippy trippy studio boy band" held the keys to the Stones existence and therefore, your fanboy status.
 
#195
dougjwray said:
No, the Beatles (A.K.A. "The Big Bang") created the very framework which allowed the Stones -- and every other group on the planet who wrote their own songs -- to have a market.

Also: Beatles = musical revolutionaries; Stones = "bad boy" poseurs

:ninja:
Click to expand...

Every band..really? Wow like nobody before them knew how do this..we dumb Americans :rolleyes:

Musical revolutionaries..Ok if that's how you feel since they were only around 10 years they feel as old as a Revolution that is for sure. When I was a kid we learned Yellow Submarine along with songs like Puff the magic dragon etc..... such a wonderful childrens song :p
 
#196
bassbully said:
Every band..really? Wow like nobody before them knew how do this..we dumb Americans :rolleyes:

Musical revolutionaries..Ok if that's how you feel since they were only around 10 years they feel as old as a Revolution that is for sure. When I was a kid we learned Yellow Submarine along with songs like Puff the magic dragon etc..... such a wonderful childrens song :p
Click to expand...

Without realizing it, you put your finger on it: "Yellow Submarine" is exactly a children's song. McCartney had deliberately set out to write one. As teenagers, he and Lennon envisioned themselves as "professional songwriters", who could compose in any style. They were fired up by American rock and roll, but still aimed to write in an insane number of genres. If you like the Stones because they satisfy your need for music with an anti-establishment (or whatever you want to call it) veneer, that's fine. But, according to my calculations, :D in 100 years the Stones' music will be covered by about 7 bar bands (if such things exist) while songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Yesterday", "In My Life", etc. will still be ubiquitous, played by cloud-based robot orchestras, or whatever.
 
#197
dougjwray said:
Without realizing it, you put your finger on it: "Yellow Submarine" is exactly a children's song. McCartney had deliberately set out to write one. As teenagers, he and Lennon envisioned themselves as "professional songwriters", who could compose in any style. They were fired up by American rock and roll, but still aimed to write in an insane number of genres. If you like the Stones because they satisfy your need for music with an anti-establishment (or whatever you want to call it) veneer, that's fine. But, according to my calculations, :D in 100 years the Stones' music will be covered by about 7 bar bands (if such things exist) while songs like "Eleanor Rigby", "Yesterday", "In My Life", etc. will still be ubiquitous, played by cloud-based robot orchestras, or whatever.
Click to expand...

I knew it was a childrens song and that was the point...a Childrens song :spit:...dang I wonder if Keef ever wrote a lovely childrens song when he was shootin smack :)

Hey the Stones are still playing their own covers 50 years later...where are the Beatles?
 
#198
bassbully said:
Every band..really? Wow like nobody before them knew how do this..we dumb Americans :rolleyes:

Musical revolutionaries..Ok if that's how you feel since they were only around 10 years they feel as old as a Revolution that is for sure. When I was a kid we learned Yellow Submarine along with songs like Puff the magic dragon etc..... such a wonderful childrens song :p
Click to expand...

What I meant by that: The Beatles, Britain's leading export in 1964 (over tea, ships, Bentleys, and everything else), were so phenomenally successful that they prompted a huge growth in the record industry while simultaneously keeping that industry off balance. What I mean by the latter is that with almost every new album, they changed styles, which in turn spawned (or helped further) new subgenres of rock music. The labels (remember them?) began signing all kinds of new bands like crazy, hoping to catch lightning in a bottle again.
 
#199
bassbully said:
I knew it was a childrens song and that was the point...a Childrens song :spit:...dang I wonder if Keef ever wrote a lovely childrens song when he was shootin smack :)

Hey the Stones are still playing their own covers 50 years later...where are the Beatles?
Click to expand...

Okay, well I guess I'm a music fan, while you're just a rock fan. :spit::D

Yes, the Stones are still around. You win there. So is Engelbert Humperdinck. And Spam. And Twinkies (soon to be distributed by a new company).
 
#200
dougjwray said:
Okay, well I guess I'm a music fan, while you're just a rock fan. :spit::D

Yes, the Stones are still around. You win there. So is Engelbert Humperdinck. And Spam. And Twinkies (soon to be distributed by a new company).
Click to expand...

Your wrong I am a music fan and that is why I prefer the Stones...don't hate. I will say the Stones were a true rock band and lived it. The Beatles wrote some nice songs about strawberries, yellow subs, and weird trippy people like Lucy, Elenore and Sgt Peppers?????

I'm sure the Beatles would of been more interesting to me maybe if they would of lasted like the Stones or spam... sadly all we have are memories in the end ;)
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back