The Beatles V The Rolling Stones

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by David_Swan, Jul 16, 2001.

  1. The Beatles

    132 vote(s)
  2. The Rolling Stones

    48 vote(s)
  1. David_Swan


    Jul 15, 2001
    PR MN
    I know I know, not everyone is a Beatles fan or a stones fan, but music is music, so everyone sould understand.
    The Beatles were big, The Stones were and still are big. The Beatles lasted 7 years, the Stones are still going. Who was or is the better band?
    Or who had a bigger impact on music?

    Edit (BW) Sorry, that misspelled "impact" was making me cringe.
  2. Paul A

    Paul A

    Dec 13, 1999
    Hertfordshire U.K!
    Gotta be the Stones.
    From a personal point of view I think Jagger/Richards were MUCH better songwriters than Lennon And the other guy.
    I always (and this is a personal view don't forget!) thought (and still do ) that the Beatles were crap.
  3. Gabu


    Jan 2, 2001
    Woodland Hills, CA
    I have to admit, you are the first I have ever heard think that way. But to each his/her own. I like both bands... But I think the beatles were bigger than the stones and musically better.
  4. Blackbird

    Blackbird Moderator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Mar 18, 2000
    Dylan was smarter and the Stones rocked harder, but the Beatles changed popular culture (not just music) as we know it.
  5. Paul A

    Paul A

    Dec 13, 1999
    Hertfordshire U.K!
    I have to disagree, Bands like The Stones and The Who had a far greater effect on the youth culture / music scene in the u.k. - I don't remember too many kids wearing Beatle wigs!
  6. Gabu


    Jan 2, 2001
    Woodland Hills, CA
    Gosh, in the US I don't remember any kids wearing wigs... at all. We must not like music! ;)
  7. jazzbo


    Aug 25, 2000
    San Francisco, CA
    I really thought Coltrane was a great writer because -


  8. first off the beatles are the better band!!!!!

    second the beatles are the better band!!!

    and finally the b e a t l e s are the better band!

    don't get me wrong i love the stones! but the beatles were first, they changed the face of rock music! the stones, who, zepplin, floyd and bands like that perfected it, but the beatles started it. think about today's rock music, it's so hard to start something new, that's why the beatles are better, because they didn't believe that music had to stay the same, they had their own idea of what it was and went with it!
  9. JimK


    Dec 12, 1999
    ...I was a FIRST grader at St. Monica's in South Philly sportin' my Beatle boots.
    (The following year we moved down her to SE Va; the boots went into the closet, naturally). ;)
  10. I think the Beatles had a much greater impact on rock music that the Rolling Stones. They're still touring? I thought Keith was dead! ;)
  11. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Commercial User

    Mar 8, 2000
    Gaithersburg, Md
    Boom Bass Cabinets, DR strings
    Beatle boots in VA in the 60's?:eek:

    "Don't mind Jimmy, that boy's touched":D

    I wanted the pointy James Brown boots. Had the moves down, used to practice on the fireplace hearth in my stocking feet.

    Ahh, mammaries.
  12. cole


    Sep 14, 2000
    I suspect they have to cryogenically freeze him between albums.
  13. Mike


    Sep 7, 2000
    Overall, I say The Beatles. They did their thing and ended it before they became a parody of themselves. I like a lot of Stones material but, like Aerosmith, it's time to either do something new or give it up. (Aerosmith hasn't done anything but a bunch of lame pop tunes in quite a while.) Some things just run their course and I think the Stones have exhausted theirs.
  14. cassanova


    Sep 4, 2000
    I went with the Beatles...Im not too keen on the Stones, Dont care for Jagers voice much, or the music going on behind them. (thats most tunes, I like a small handfull of Stones stuff)
    I love the Beatles though, and what they did for music, how they changed it, and I like most all of their songs too.
  15. Paul A

    Paul A

    Dec 13, 1999
    Hertfordshire U.K!
    Someone enlighten me on how the Beatles changed music as far as we know it?
    As I see it modern rock music started with the likes of Robert Johnson,Muddy Waters,John Lee Hooker,Howlin wolf, etc etc.
    This was the music that the Stones brought to the masses - The roots stuff with their own spin on it.
    The Beatles? Merseybeat? Freddie and the dreamers? Cilla Black?............AAAAAARRRRGH!!!!
    Frog Chorus anyone.....?
  16. That question is like asking "What's better - an Aston Martin or a Ferrari?" or "What's better - $1,000,000 in gold or $1,000,000 in silver."
  17. JOhnk


    Mar 31, 2001
    burlington, vt
    I like both of them, although not equally. I have more Beatles Cds than I do the Stones.. I think that both of them really came from different angles, and had seperate effects on music. Saying that one was bigger than the other is more or less false.
  18. Traveler


    Jun 26, 2001
    Greenwood, AR.

    You are right. Blues hits such as Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, Leadbelly, Booker T Jones..............they actually influenced the rise of what we know as rock. All rock today evolved from blues. Bands such as Led Zeppelin, Cream, Stones, and Hendrixstarted playing blues, and then used it to create modern rock. The way I see it, The Beatles didn't start modern rock. They actually ended the old version of 50's and early 60's rock. But they had a giant impact on American pop culture, so I would have to say the Beatles had the largest impact in that respect. I absolutely love both of these bands, so my personal preference has no impact on this vote. The Beatles affected music directly, but the Stones and others affected it in a much more subtle and yet much more important way. So I cast my vote for Jagger and crew.
  19. brianrost

    brianrost Gold Supporting Member

    Apr 26, 2000
    Boston, Taxachusetts
    This is a joke, right? :)

    All you have to do is talk to musicians who were active at the time and how THEY were influenced. After seeing the Beatles on Ed Sullivan the first time they appeared I suddenly knew what I wanted to do with my life :)

    A lot of their impact went way beyond the music itself to include the way they packaged and promoted themselves. They legitimized the self contained band concept in rock and roll. They were the first rock and roll band to be considered seriously as musicians (as opposed to degenerate trailer trash). They popularized the idea of recordings as more than documenting live performances. They paved the way for folk-rock (Byrds, etc.) and art rock. The artistic growth made possible by their financial success was unprecedented. Of course, they also made possible the corporate music business as we know it today by demonstrating how much money you could make with carefully handled marketing :(

    Sure, there were plenty of Merseybeat imitators (including the Stones!) and many sucked, so what. Take any genre of music and there are the innovators and the bandwagon followers.

    Go look at the evolution of rock music from 1962 to 1970, it went from Dion and the Belmonts to Led Zeppelin. The catalyst for that wasn't the Rolling Stones, baby!!!!
  20. Paul A

    Paul A

    Dec 13, 1999
    Hertfordshire U.K!
    Give me one example of a stones "Merseybeat" song please, and while you're at it do a little bit of research on Jimmy Page, who very nearly became a "stone".
    We don't get the Ed Sullivan show over here in the U.K. (Where the Beatles came from!).
    Most musicians that I've talked to (who were active at that period in time) certainly don't cite the Beatles as an influence.
    An awful lot of them seem to have been infuenced by the likes of Alexis Korner, The Yardbirds, John Mayall, and......yes.....the Stones.
    Things may well have been different in the States, but over here they were only really liked as a sort of "Boy Band"..... safe music that you could play to your granny.
    And no it isn't a joke, just a personal opinion ...BABY!
    So theres no need to throw your toys out of the pram is there?