Beatles or the Stones?

silenthunterstudios

silenthunterstudios

Slipjoint Addict
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
20,039
I've been hearing a lot of comparisons about the Beatles and Rolling Stones, especially with all of the press the Beatles are getting lately with their new Rock Band release, remastered albums etc. I've seen a lot of magazine articles comparing the Beatles to the Stones, a lot of people seem to compare them whenever they bring up "the greatest rock bands". For me, I like both bands, but think the Stones are better. The Rolling Stones do rock, blues, a little bit of country twang here and there. I like a few choice Beatles songs, and respect them, but I like most Stones songs.

So, which one is your favorite?

To add, I just turned 30. I grew up in my fathers shop, listening to the oldies stations among others.
 
Last edited:
The Beatles for one simple reason. They were pretty much still at the top of their game when they called it quits, much like Led Zep. We didn't have to watch them get old or make artistic missteps, at least as a band. The Stones, like many other great acts that have been around for along time, had a period when they could do no wrong musically, which is suprising because it was also a time when at least Keith seemed to be hell bent on killing himself slowly. i don't think anyone can say that they put out a BETTER body of work than the stones did during the time that Mick Taylor was with the band and the first 7 or 8 years with Ronnie Wood. Elton John was pretty much the same way up the the "Captain Fantastic" record as was Clapton up through at least "Slowhand" and Z.Z Top up through El Loco and maybe Eliminator because it was rather innovative. But all of those guys put out some less than stellar material at some later point.
I would also mention folks like Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Otis Reading. Gram Parsons and Duane Allman, but their situation is obviously different. But even of the guys who died young, some were already on the way down, like Jim Morrison and Paul Kossof.
 
Beatles by a landslide for me.

Never been a huge fan of the Stones for some reason.
 
jdm61 said:
they called it quits, much like Led Zep
Click to expand...

Well, John Bonham dying might have had something to do with them "calling it quits"...

Anyway, the Beatles, by volcano causing an earthquake causing an avalanche causing a landslide causing a sinkhole. Don't get me wrong, I like the Stones too, but they can't touch the Beatles.
 
Planterz said:
Well, John Bonham dying might have had something to do with them "calling it quits"...

Anyway, the Beatles, by volcano causing an earthquake causing an avalanche causing a landslide causing a sinkhole. Don't get me wrong, I like the Stones too, but they can't touch the Beatles.
Click to expand...

True, but they could have soldiered on like AC/DC and other bands. I think they were close to being done anyway before Bonham died. Page had so many health issues over the years, he needed a rest.
The Beatles may be the best example ever of the total being more than the sum of the parts. Sure, Lennon and Harrison did some great work later and McCartney has done some decent stuff over the years, but none of it compares to what those four lads did together.
 
To my ear, the Beatles have some good songs and some bad songs, while the Rolling Stones have only bad songs. I'd even prefer the crappy pop tunes from the early B albums to anything by R.S.
 
I like both, but if I had to choose one, it would be the Beatles. Apart from anything else they were, as a group, more innovative musically that just about anyone else, including the Stones. Did you know it was John Lennon who first used guitar feedback in a recording. Stuff like that.
 
I've never understood the appeal of either. To me it always seemed like commercial music aimed at 13 year old girls.
I'm not nor have I ever been a 13 year old girl so I didn't get it.
 
I think the early Beatles mastered the 2:30 (playtime) rock song format (think Chuck Berry thru the girl groups like The Crystals and The Shirelles) and turned out more consistently terrific songs like that than anybody. And then with the last note of Sgt. Pepper I always thought they closed that era and opened the door for whatever followed.
Stones, Who, Searchers, Moody Blues - they were all great to listen to but never moved or set the bar like the Beatles did. Actually, aside from the Beatles, my favorites from that era were the Kinks and the Dave Clark Five, but truth be told they were all just flat out fun to listen to when we (which most certainly includes them) were all young!
 
the beatles were a recording studio phenomenon..............the stones could (and can) get a hall moving and really find a groove................b
 
I'm kind of with protourist; I was never a really big fan of either group. Oh, I suppose I'd lean toward Lennon & McCartney's songwriting, but I often heard these songs performed by other "pop" artists.
"Nice song, who wrote that?" "Oh, John Lennon? Isn't he in The Beatles?"

Only much later on, when I got interested in "roots" music, did I catch that much of the musical underpinnings of both groups were old blues and folk artists.
 
John took the Beatles into the studio almost exclusively only after he realized they couldn't be heard in the stadiums they were playing because of all the screaming and that it wasn't about the music. Prior to that Beatles were a live band (who cut their teeth doing long long gigs in small clubs), and incidentally the first one to play to over 55,000 in a major outdoor stadium. Not just a recording studio act.
 
Planterz said:
Anyway, the Beatles, by volcano causing an earthquake causing an avalanche causing a landslide causing a sinkhole. Don't get me wrong, I like the Stones too, but they can't touch the Beatles.
Click to expand...

What he said, except I'll add that the Rolling Stones suck.
 
I couldn't choose between the two myself.

When I listen to songs like "A day in the life"(Beatles) & "Gimme Shelter"(Stones) ,.....just can't choose :o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top