The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

[cute angelika]

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

[Dingo Xavier]

Neither!

...

[notbob]

if success = survival, the stones win

the 2 good beatles are dead

[moneoa]

Shazzammmmm...a voting poll appears.

[Arch Stanton]

Beatles would have been even better if they could have performed live. I think the comparison needs to be: The best Beatles studio work versus the best Stones live performances.

Some people prefer live shows to studio work, some don't.

I'd have to say I like the Beatles better but the Stones always put on one hell of a show. Guess the Beatles didn't have the heart for it, or maybe it was John (aka Yoko) that resulted in them not doing any live performances. You look at Paul, George, and even Ringo and they didn't have any issues doing Live stuff later on. Whats-Up

[Christoph]

Beatles!I my opinion a little bit to soft but they had better lyrics and some good pop sounds.

[mojo-ris-in]

For me it's The Beatles no question. They revolutionised the way albums were made with experimentation that nobody else ever thought to do. Sgt. Pepper's, in particular, changed the entire scope of music and what came after.

[ratbag]

They both make me yawn.

[moneoa]

They both make me yawn.
Blasphemer......

[shawners]

I can listen to the stones more then the beatles.. Rolling stones are known for their performance, and unlike the beatles who just stood in one place for an hour singing.. They were able to move around.
Stones had more sucess since the beatles couldnt hold it together.

[Digital Bliss]

The Rolling Stones should be thrown into a lake.

[Dingo Xavier]

The Rolling Stones should be thrown into a lake.

With pirahna

[Pathtek24]

The Beatles...they started the revolution man..

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I agree with Dingo and ratbag.

But I think the Beatles suck more.

[shawners]

You know Johnny Cash movie came out.. Been obtaining a bit of some stuff. That live album at folsom prison is pretty insane.. I never knew how wild he was or the things he sing about.. In that time it was really frowned upon... alot of these other bands cleaned up the lyrics or just made radio friendly songs so they get played. Cocaine blues on the radio be awesome to hear.

[Jitway]

The beatles only because they have the greatest songwrting duo that ever was.

[black_magiic]

I say beatles all the way :D I still quite enjoy the stones though.

[Mels_Smileys45]

The Beatles, no question. The reason they stopped touring was because the way their last tour went so crazy. If you ever watch "Imagine" you will hear John say they had just became puppets for a bunch of screaming girls and no one was listening to the music at all and thats not what they were about. They could perform live and wrote and played all their own music. Having a 4 track doesnt mean shit. Watching mic prance around on stage like a little girl does nothing for the sound. Music is made to be heard not seen. Now go get the White Album and listen to something grand.


P.S. The Stones should have broke up a long freaking time ago.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I voted stones.


I would never discount the genius of the Beatles, but when I'm driving down the road... I WANT my music to be mindless. I have my attention on the road and I just want a rythym to drive with me. Not that a thougth provoking tune can't be catchy as well.


Then again, I love the blues tinge to the stones.

[Mels_Smileys45]

The Stones are good but there are only about three songs I think are special, Paint it Black, Sympathy for the Devil and Satisfaction. They were a really good cover band and the early blues stuff was nice.

[MrBag]

As far longevity, the stones,, as far as talent .. the beatles hands down, i have studied and played music for over 25 years , both have completely different styles and sound, A lot of the credit for the Beatles has to go to the producers for help creating their sound but as far as Musicians THE BEATES,,, not to take anything away from the stones ,i have everyone of their CD's, ...thanks for listening,

[pandoraenima1]

As they say rollin stones gather no moss, and Beatle are just bugs that should be squashed.

[Auggie2k]

As they say rollin stones gather no moss, and Beatle are just bugs that should be squashed.
And the stones are just random pieces of evolution all over the world that serve no puropose.

Bite your tongue, the Beatles were and still are great.

[cheapprick]

I can't see how this is a serious question.

If it wasn't for the Beatles we wouldn't even know who the Stones were. The Beatles opened doors and changed the concept of music. All the Stones have really done is change the concept of how long a person can abuse drugs before they die.

[The Hunter]

Exceedingly long it would appear.

[mfgbypooter]

The Pre-Fab Four blows them both away.

Long live the Rutles.

*

[grab_grab_the_haddock]

The stones all the way. They fused blues, rock n roll and country in a way which had never been done before. They practically created rock music and took live performance to a whole new level.

Sure the beatles were influential, but any honest beatles fan would admit John and Paul never wrote a tune as good as gimme shelter or an album that rocks like exile on main street.

And the beatles rhythym section were a joke compared to Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman.

[cheapprick]

You're clearly wrong.

Don't you ever tire of it?:icon_pira

[fleecy]

gotta agree with grab- gimme shelter is still an all-time fave.

[rastagard]

Aw, c'mon now. This is hardly an either or, question.

They both changed the world whether you like them or not. A very good argument can be made for measuring history before and after the Beatles, thats for sure. Things just weren't the same after the Beatles hit the scene. I am old enough to have experienced it all, and let me tell you, there hasn't been anything like that since. Even though the Stones came just after the Beatles, they surely made a mark.

I don't even want to think of what the world would be like if we had one, but not the other.

[Lord_of_the_Dense]

I'd be willing to take my chances without them both.

[Excrement_Cranium]

Michael Jordan is the best basketball player evar!!!!!

After Kareem Abdul Jabbar was the best basketball player evar!!!!!

After Wilt Chamberlain was the best........

[mfgbypooter]

Wilt the Stilt.

Loved him in Airplane!

*

[cheapprick]

That was Kareem Abdul Jabbar

[mfgbypooter]

Cut me some slack, jack.

My mistake.

I know about Kareem, but I was thinking he was one of the Jive talking dudes that Beaver's mom translated for. He wasn't.

*

[jon138]

Neither band were very original.

The Beatles pffft...standard british pop untill they started "experimenting" ie:trying to catch up with the new psychedelic sounds.

The Stones started out as a blues cover band and developed into what they became.

Unlike the Beatles, the Stones ROCKED.

To the previous poster who said the only good songs were Sympathy, Paint it Black and something else, you obviously never heard "Stray Cat Blues (one of the sleaziest songs EVER), "Dead Flowers", or at least 20 other songs that are miles above anythinge else.

IMHO the stones were a bigger influence then the Beatles as well. They provided the inspiration for countless rock, metal, garage, punk and even country bands. The Beatles inspire a lo of bands too...but I'd rather listen to a band described as having a raunchy stones sound than a beatlesque pop sound.

[Excrement_Cranium]

I dunno.


I think a lot of people give the beatles a nod in the same way other people cross themselves when entering a church.

[Mels_Smileys45]

Neither band were very original.

The Beatles pffft...standard british pop untill they started "experimenting" ie:trying to catch up with the new psychedelic sounds.

The Stones started out as a blues cover band and developed into what they became.

Unlike the Beatles, the Stones ROCKED.

To the previous poster who said the only good songs were Sympathy, Paint it Black and something else, you obviously never heard "Stray Cat Blues (one of the sleaziest songs EVER), "Dead Flowers", or at least 20 other songs that are miles above anythinge else.

IMHO the stones were a bigger influence then the Beatles as well. They provided the inspiration for countless rock, metal, garage, punk and even country bands. The Beatles inspire a lo of bands too...but I'd rather listen to a band described as having a raunchy stones sound than a beatlesque pop sound.

Ive heard it all and probably know more than most about both bands. Yes, the Beatles are idols of mine and the Stones just seem to fit into the "Play some Free Bird man" "slap yor bitch" crowd IMO.

To be nice.

To each his own.

[SanDiegoKid]

I realize that without these two bands, we would be losing an important piece of music history.

Well, I appreciate the legacy of proto-human species too. It doesn't mean I want to sit and listen to a caveman belt out his greatest hits.

Piss on them both.

[shawners]

I dont know how you can listen to the beatles "I want to hold your hand" over "Shattered."

[SanDiegoKid]

I do, I admit, bring the house down with my harrowing rendition of "Wild Horses" karaoke.

... but what really pleases my fans is when I do up some "Rocket Man"... Shatner Style!