• 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.

The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones?

The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones

  • The Beatles

    Votes: 84 86.6%

  • The Rolling Stones

    Votes: 13 13.4%
  • Total voters
    97
Matthew_84

Matthew_84

Nov 7, 2010
6,497
5,101
Greater Toronto Area, Canada
#1
I had to do this out of curiosity... My parents always told me when they were growing up there were two kinds of kids, The Beatles Kids and The Stones Kids.

I never understood this. To me, one was far superior over the other, and there were other bands in the same era that were way better (in my opinion) than the other band.

I think I know how this will go, but I'm curious if people are as divided as my parents let me believe.
 
#4
The Beatles were pop, rock, psychedelia, ballads with strings, the first band to use feedback, Innovators in the studio and working class guys who started dressing nice.

The Stones were blues rock with a dash of country, a dreadful foray into psychedelia and bourgeois dudes who pretended to be bad boys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ikkir, ICM, jim nolte and 6 others
#5
in High School in the early 70s, you couldn't like Yes AND Emerson Lake and Palmer.

one or the other, we argued for five years about which was better lol.

About the Stones and Beatles,their diehard crazy fans were one or the other,but the bands were good friends. Most people liked BOTH bands in reality.

wonder if Beiber v 1D is the same?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SasquatchDude and Deleted member 264575
#6
I liked both. I guess I liked the Beatles more; but I really liked a lot of the Stones stuff as well. And the Dave Clark Five. The Animals. Paul Revere & the Raiders. And on and on...

I think that one reason I preferred the Beatles more often than the Stones was because of their vocal versatility. All 4 of them could do a credible job singing lead on certain songs, and their harmonies were very good. With the Stones, it was pretty much all Mick, all the time (vocally). But they put out some great stuff.
 
#13
Tough call. I've always loved the Beatles but I like the Stones too. Aside from them being contemporaries I don't really feel like they were playing the same type of music. The Beatles were more pop and experimental. The Stones were a less polished and more bluesy. Two different styles.
 
#14
Don't get me wrong, I have a huge respect for the Beatles. They broke ground for the whole British invasion and through most of the sixties the Beatles trumped the Stones.

But, I've been a huge Stones fan forever. Beggar's banquet through Exile on main street was the magic period for the Stones, most of that work was recorded after the Beatles existed as a band.

To me it was as if the Beatles handed over the baton, "Here, see how far YOU can go with it."




Lastly, the Stones rocked, the Beatles music was overall a softer, gentler kind of rock and roll. Our parents generation even liked the Beatles.
 
#15
I tend to value accuracy and precision in the execution phase of ensemble performance, and therefor found the Beatles usually offered a much more interesting sonic tapestry.

Some people find allure and apparently some cultural joy and comfort in the aura of "authenticity" lent by a more chaotic total presentation, and to me, that was the Rolling Stones' stock in trade. I have nothing against the Stones, they just usually weren't selling something I was drawn to.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back