SirMjac28
Patiently Waiting For The Next British Invasion
I love both bands and to me it's like trying to decide who your favorite kid is?
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.
The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones?
- Thread starter Matthew_84
- Start date
Such genre words are silly. Compare "Helter Skelter" to "Far Away Eyes" and you could say the Beatles are metal, the Stones are country.
Listen to the drums. They're not noticeable, they're just there, always rock solid and yet swinging. I've never come close to playing with a drummer so tasteful.
Always been an apples v. oranges debate to me.
My opinion: Beatles had a greater lasting impact on music, Stones had a greater lasting impact on lifestyle. Beatles wrote some of the most important songs ever recorded, Stones also wrote some tasty jams, but pretty much invented / owned the rock star thing. I see bands all the time that try to sound like the Beatles and look / act like the Stones.
That said, I love both.
My opinion: Beatles had a greater lasting impact on music, Stones had a greater lasting impact on lifestyle. Beatles wrote some of the most important songs ever recorded, Stones also wrote some tasty jams, but pretty much invented / owned the rock star thing. I see bands all the time that try to sound like the Beatles and look / act like the Stones.
That said, I love both.
Not gonna vote, I like both too much. The Beatles earned their legendary status honestly.
About the Stones, though. When I was growing up in the 80s the Stones released a song (with cheesy MTV video, of course) called Undercover of the Night. A lot of old school Stones fans hated, and still hate, that song. But I kind of liked it. My dad listened to it one day and pointed out to me that it had a lot of good instrumentation in it if you really pay attention to it, and the production was good, too. And this wasn't the Stones of the 60s anymore, they had evolved through funk and disco and actually gotten to a new place. What took the Beatles less than a decade took the Stones about 2 decades to do, but it was definitely creative.
Nowadays they are, of course, doing the occassional show and releasing a one-off here and there, and of course they are literally old men, but the fact they still exist 44 years after the Beatles fell apart is worthy of note at least. And when Jagger was on SNL with Foo Fighters it was flat out awesome, the guy is a rock star for a reason.
About the Stones, though. When I was growing up in the 80s the Stones released a song (with cheesy MTV video, of course) called Undercover of the Night. A lot of old school Stones fans hated, and still hate, that song. But I kind of liked it. My dad listened to it one day and pointed out to me that it had a lot of good instrumentation in it if you really pay attention to it, and the production was good, too. And this wasn't the Stones of the 60s anymore, they had evolved through funk and disco and actually gotten to a new place. What took the Beatles less than a decade took the Stones about 2 decades to do, but it was definitely creative.
Nowadays they are, of course, doing the occassional show and releasing a one-off here and there, and of course they are literally old men, but the fact they still exist 44 years after the Beatles fell apart is worthy of note at least. And when Jagger was on SNL with Foo Fighters it was flat out awesome, the guy is a rock star for a reason.
- Oct 18, 2012
- 6,683
- 5,538
- Disclosures
- Endorsing Artist: Fender, Spector, Ampeg, Curt Mangan, Nordstrand Pickups, Korg , Conquest Sound
Exactly how I feel. I like a few of The Stones early songs but not enough to want to buy anything they've done. The Beatles have always been my favorite band.
It's a funny question, because as noted , the two bands were very friendly. The whole controversy was something cooked up by the press. Mick (and possibly Keef) were in the crowd when All You Need Is Love was telecast live around the world, and John & Paul sang backup on We Love You. Brian played sax on You Know my Name (Look Up The Number) and Mick went with the Beatles to mediate with the Maharishi in Wales. Paul attended Mick's wedding to Bianca, and Keith mused about George as a fellow lead player after George passed away.
Besides all this (and more), John & Paul taught Mick and Keith how to write songs, finishing up I Wanna Be Your Man while they watched in amazement, which became the Stones' second single.
Besides all this (and more), John & Paul taught Mick and Keith how to write songs, finishing up I Wanna Be Your Man while they watched in amazement, which became the Stones' second single.
Wow, Mellowin', I never knew John was THAT violent......can you recommend some good sources for info about him?
Had to go Beatles more variety in their material, Stones were great but all thier stuff pretty much sounded the same to me
I hate to say it, but always the same vocalist, a bass that usually sounds like a muted tuba, and almost invariably a five string open G tuned GDGBD guitar (basically re-inventing the autoharp), did that for me too.
The Beatles for their song writing, style, harmony and clean cut looks. The stones for their pounding rock, grit and bad boy style.
The Beatles were the better band but the Stones got to hone their craft longer as a group.
If the Beatles never broke up, or if the Stones broke up at the same time I don't think people would be asking this question.
That is why I voted Beatles.
For me, at the time, it was the Who.
If the Beatles never broke up, or if the Stones broke up at the same time I don't think people would be asking this question.
That is why I voted Beatles.
For me, at the time, it was the Who.
