• 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 .
#201
Thick McRunfast said:
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
Click to expand...
a fascinating reversal of image, since the Beatles were far and away the bad boys compared to the Stones, at least pre-Epstein.
I had to vote Beatles. Love the Stones, and the Beatles could never do what the Stones did. Apples to oranges.
But the Beatles had three killer songwriters, Paul on bass, great vocal talent. They're a much greater influence to me personally.
 
#204
bassbully said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

The Beatles were a great band; the Stones are a great Rock n' Roll band!

It would of been interesting if the Beatles never stopped touring and still made Albums like Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery, White, Let it Be, Abby Road. But then again, if they toured, would they have still made those albums?
 
#205
bearfoot said:
a fascinating reversal of image, since the Beatles were far and away the bad boys compared to the Stones, at least pre-Epstein.
I had to vote Beatles. Love the Stones, and the Beatles could never do what the Stones did. Apples to oranges.
But the Beatles had three killer songwriters, Paul on bass, great vocal talent. They're a much greater influence to me personally.
Click to expand...

Guess it all depends on how you define "bad". I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of expert on The Beatles but I'm not aware of anything they wrote that came close to something like Schoolboy Blues aka "a title that would get me whacked by a moderator".
 
#208
Thick McRunfast said:
Guess it all depends on how you define "bad". I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of expert on The Beatles but I'm not aware of anything they wrote that came close to something like Schoolboy Blues aka "a title that would get me whacked by a moderator".
Click to expand...

I mean outside of their music. The Beatles were from the poorer background I beleive, scrappers, womanizers, druggies. All in leather pre-Epstein. The Stones were more prep boys wanting to look or sound tough.
I could be wrong but thats how I understand it.
 
#210
bearfoot said:
I mean outside of their music. The Beatles were from the poorer background I beleive, scrappers, womanizers, druggies. All in leather pre-Epstein. The Stones were more prep boys wanting to look or sound tough.
I could be wrong but thats how I understand it.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Mick Jagger was a student at the London School of Economics, and Keef and Brian Jones were also college students when the Stones formed. The Beatles' original bassist, Stu Sutcliffe, died of a brain injury which is generally believed to have resulted from a (documented) street fight that he, Lennon and Harrison participated in, in Hamburg. Everyone knows about the grass and LSD, but in Hamburg, all of the Beatles relied heavily on speed to make it through the long shows, and let's not forget that Lennon was a full-fledged heroin addict during the final years of the Beatles.
 
#211
(Stepping away from the skirmish for a minute...)

These debates always fascinate me because of how much people differ as far as what really gets to them.
For example, I have a visceral reaction to the daredevil chord changes in songs like "Things We Said Today" or "You're Going To Lose That Girl" (goosebumps, hair on the back of the neck standing up, etc.), while I've never had that reaction to the Stones. With them it's more of an intellectual thing. ("So THAT'S the tuning Keith used to get that cool sound." Or, more negatively, "Okay-- another Mick song about something naughty. [yawn]")

It's so obvious that many of us would have the opposite reaction to the two bands-- intellectual appreciation of the Beatles' accomplishments and historical position, visceral reaction to the Stones.

Well, that's what makes the world go around.

Okay, back to the mayhem!
 
#214
JoeVictim said:
Sorry... :D
Click to expand...

No need to apologize.

My list of all-time favorite albums by ALL bands has ALL of these on it:

Let it Be
Let it Bleed
Sticky Fingers
The White Album
Out of Our Heads
A Hard Day's Night
Some Girls
Abbey Road
Black & Blue
Revolver
Exile on Main Street
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
It's Only Rock and Roll
Rubber Soul
Between the Buttons
Help!
Beggars Banquet
Magical Mystery Tour
Goats Head Soup
Beatles for Sale

See what I did there? There are a few more albums I really like by both groups, but I was able to list the exact same number of ESSENTIAL albums for both bands, and for those of you who are scratching your heads on "Beatles for Sale," that is a fine rock and roll album there.

Give it a listen, and make sure you turn it up loud.
 
#216
Good album list. While you mentioned The Who, the top six most influential British bands of the early to mid '60s were the Beatles, the Stones, the Who, the Yardbirds, the Animals, and the Kinks. Pretty much in that order.
 
#220
Beatles. I find the Stones stuff as a bass player extremely boring. I can barely get through listening to a tune when learning a new one. I can't put my finger on it exactly. I'm a funk R/B guy, but i can do beatles all day and love it.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back