The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[broneck]

vote now.

vs.

[kunk75]

not even close for me. stones.

[inaya]

rolling stones+

[broneck]

I dont know where I stand on this. The stones songs that I love, I fucking LOVE...but I love more beatles songs, less.

[chronoaug]

beatles. then kinks. then stones

also. fuck paul. john and george

edit: i take that back. paul is a great musician/singer, but i still like the creativity of john and george better. Paul was fun live when i saw him and he played 80% beatles songs

the kinks are something serious though

[denimdestroyedmylife]

the kinks.

_______________________

[kunk75]

not a beatles fan but only the john songs are worth a shit to me. stones have a lot of shit somgs but look at their comparable catalogue. lotta volume so you're gonna have some shit.

[kunk75]

my wife and i had a fight about the who last week. i was defending them. she really hates them and will turn them off in the car.

[sarcasticone]

Stones all the fucking waaaaaaaay

Yeah, you got satin shoes

Yeah, you got plastic boots

Y'all got cocaine eyes

Yeah, you got speed-freak jive

Can't you hear me knockin'.......

[chronoaug]

Then again, the beatles did the early 60s cover rock pop really well. They didn't write their early songs, but i still find myself listening to early beatles more than later these days.

Then again, i listen to kinks albums more than either lately.

[kunk75]

"some girls" i could listen to about a million times.

[timber]

the kinks.

YEAH - and The Zombies.

[sarcasticone]

I just want to have Charlie Watts teach me how to play the drums for a day.

[chronoaug]

Seriously. When it comes to rock organ stuff: The Zombies >>>>>>>> The doors

[mike lowrey]

beatles. then kinks. then stones

yes .

[cjbreed]

i love both but to me the beatles were more creative and diverse and talented songwriters. rolling stones were just a great blues inspired rock band. it doesn't help that they haven't released anything worth a shit in 30 years but still tour constantly like a bloated dinosaur stale cartoon mockery of themselves...

still love 'em though

and the who is greatness. people who are really into rock music can dig how great they are. casual observers can get annoyed by the same 5 songs the constantly spin on classic rock stations.

[chronoaug]

I also like how the beatles are dying in order of greatness. I think ringo will live on forever (5)

[denimdestroyedmylife]

it is not a fair comparison

the beatles output is this big (__ ) and the stones output is this big (__________) and growing

i kind of played out the beatles and find myself reaching for obscure boots or solo material when i get the jones

the stones catalog is so vast that after more than a decade of exploring i still haven't got them sorted

[Clockwork_killa]

All the good beatles are dead (cept ringo), and Keith richards is a pirate, stones all the way.

[constant struggle]

the rolling stones are horrible

seriously f that band

i bed people who like the rolling stones also like "great acts" such as Lynyrd Skynyrd and Led Zeppelin TRASH ALL OF IT

[kunk75]

daltrey has held up better i dare say than any old rocker. mccartney looks like a lesbian mom now and plant/paige look like old ladies or man-to-woman transexuals.

[cjbreed]

I also like how the beatles are dying in order of greatness. I think ringo will live on forever (5)

ha!

sad but true

[inaya]

the stones were so much better. they had a much more progressive sound which transcended popular culture (unlike the beatles)... they incorporated other genres like blues, soul, etc, into their sound. they were also technically much better musicians than the beatles were. I don't hate on the beatles at all but I wouldn't say they were actually better than the stones, just more hyped.

[landho]

Love the Stones, but no one has had nearly as pervasive an influence as The Beatles. Songwriting, progressiveness in music, recording techniques, etc., everything The Beatles did was and still is amazing.

[ExileOnMainSt]

^^ I myself am a massive Zepplin fan. I've got When The Levee Breaks stuck in my head for the last week and I feel like I'm in a Steven Segal movie everywhere I go.

This is really a tough choice. The Rolling Stones sing some of my favorite songs of all time (sympathy for the devil, gimmie shelter, shine a light) but The Beatles have my favorite album of all time (Sgt. Pepper)

I'm gonna have to vote for The Beatles simply because they have such a wide variety of different sounding songs compared to the Stones.

Mick Jagger is a bad motherfucker though

[sarcasticone]

Exile on Main Street voted for the Beatles??? Oh the irony.

[chronoaug]

How do you base that last paragraph, inaya? The stones weren't hyped? The beatles didn't have diverse sounding songs or influences? Technically good musicians means nothing really even though paul was a really talented musician. I'm more impressed by the creativity of the beatles even though i love the blues/country/soul influences that the stones worked really well into their music. I don't even listen to the beatles that much anymore, but it usually comes in phases where i'll listen to them for a week or two non-stop and then not at all for a good while.

[broneck]

I'm really surprised that the beatles have taken such an early and sizable lead...for some reason I figured sufu would be of a pretty substantial stones leaning.

[littlebigman]

i was born in a crossfire hurricane.

'nuff said.

[landho]

Another thing to consider is that, forty years later, people are still trying to do what George Martin did in the studio. Authentic Beatles-era recording equipment goes for a premium.

Also, a few solo Beatles works are bona fide masterpieces. Nothing worth shit from solo Stones.