The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[chronoaug]

ddml is right though. It's a tough comparison other than they both started in the 60s and were british. They began playing pretty different music and with the stones living on forever and making a ton of albums after the demise of the beatles, i struggle to find a good ground to judge rather than personal preference and influence. Although, the beatles do have an advantage peaking and then dying young (the band), which always helps as they didn't have time to make a bunch of bad albums

The stones also had a lot more albums, a good number of them average to shitty. While the beatles catalog is more consistent i guess. If you include all the solo stuff, there are a bunch of shitty paul and ringo albums, but also a few genius lennon/george albums.

[denimdestroyedmylife]

lately, i have been into the stones a bit. the book i am reading inspired Sympathy for the Devil. and Let It Bleed has been in the car, playing music. I have the photo of the goat head in a bloody cauldron (from Goat Heads Soup) hanging on my wall in the basement.

[sarcasticone]

Speaking of "Let it Bleed" I could listen to the beginning of "Monkey Man" over and over.

[cjbreed]

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.

uh oh....

for once i totally disagree. (aww..our first e-argument)

the beatles changed popular music forever. there is not a rock band in the world that isn't influenced by them in some way. they may not be as technically adept as the stones. but they were master songwriters. melody, harmony, content, diversity, experimentation, and consistency. the stones were great, don't get me wrong, (hell, i'm wearing a rolling stones t-shirt today) but they weren't progressive as much as they were heavily influenced by their blues and soul predecessors. great fuckin' rock band. but not much more than that.

[Liberation1945]

you guys are all stoopz.

write in: the monkees

[Clockwork_killa]

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

Led zeppelin sure, but Lynyrd Skynyrd trash? How dare you! How can you talk about a band that gave us such classics as Sweet home Alabama, and who could forget Sweet home Alabama not to mention their biggest hit Sweet home Alabama.

[landho]

uh oh....

for once i totally disagree. (aww..our first e-argument)

the beatles changed popular music forever. there is not a rock band in the world that isn't influenced by them in some way. they may not be as technically adept as the stones. but they were master songwriters. melody, harmony, content, diversity, experimentation, and consistency. the stones were great, don't get me wrong, (hell, i'm wearing a rolling stones t-shirt today) but they weren't progressive as much as they were heavily influenced by their blues and soul predecessors. great fuckin' rock band. but not much more than that.

Spot on. Though I will say that Paul McCartney is actually a superb bassist (some of my friends claim that he's pop music's finest!), and John Lennon a fine rhythm guitarist. Harrison of course is also awesome. Ringo is nothing special, but he knows his role and plays it well. Of course, I think Watts/Wyman may be the best rhythm section in pop-music history, but what I'm saying is the argument over the bands' relative technical skills is a moot one as far as I am concerned.

[chronoaug]

Lynyrd skynard played at UF last year. I didn't even think for a moment about going even though it'd only cost me $10. How the hell do they even still call themselves that? I thought half their band was dead

Landho is right. Paul was a crazy talented musician. I prefer george and john's songs more but paul was by far the most talented of them i believe. Paul is kick ass in concert too. I got to see him on the 2nd show of the tour so his voice was really fresh unlike what i heard about it later in the tour. He even took a 10 foot fall into a hole that opened up on stage, got up and kept singing. Everyone thought he died though.

[landho]

Lynyrd skynard played at UF last year. I didn't even think for a moment about going even though it'd only cost me $10. How the hell do they even still call themselves that? I thought half their band was dead

My class song was "Freebird." Didn't know what to do during the dance when the guitar freakout began.

[yupsterism]

shouldnt the poll be between beatles and beach boys?

i love the oldies. i listen to those two above, love, zombies, the hollies, kinks, little of the monkees but i never knew any rolling stone songs until i heard that cover of paint it black by vanessa carlton

rolling stone is just a band that i dont get. all i know is that they keep touring because theyre the only leftovers from the 60s and 70s that still tour and all the old people dont wanna listen to "newer" music when they want to wine and dine in their box seats...

[selaviso]

beatles all the way!

[iralex]

beatles. then kinks. then stones

the kinks are something serious though

kinks, beatles, then stones for me

but def agree

[broneck]

is the argument over the bands' relative technical skills is a moot one as far as I am concerned.

This can't be stressed enough, and the proof behind this statement comes packaged neatly in one band - dream theatre.

everyone in that band is an absolute virtuoso, but they are the fucking shittiest songwriters on the planet

i dont care if you can play flight of the bumblebee at 100000 beats per minute, if you can't write a song your band sucks

(not that the stones can't, or do)

[mr fluffernutter]

I don't UNDERSTAND the question!

[evisu 2000]

john and paul? 0;

george harrison was clearly the coolest member of the beatles (0).

[Liberation1945]

how about who dressed nicer?

[Clockwork_killa]

I don't UNDERSTAND the question!

Who would win in a fight to the death!

[cjbreed]

My class song was "Freebird."

that is terrifying

[broneck]

john and paul? 0;

george harrison was clearly the coolest member of the beatles (0).

this may be, but he wasn't the face of the beatles.

[broneck]

My class song was "Freebird." Didn't know what to do during the dance when the guitar freakout began.

Nfh_NzpF5T0

[kunk75]

still not a fan but i totally agree.

uh oh....

for once i totally disagree. (aww..our first e-argument)

the beatles changed popular music forever. there is not a rock band in the world that isn't influenced by them in some way. they may not be as technically adept as the stones. but they were master songwriters. melody, harmony, content, diversity, experimentation, and consistency. the stones were great, don't get me wrong, (hell, i'm wearing a rolling stones t-shirt today) but they weren't progressive as much as they were heavily influenced by their blues and soul predecessors. great fuckin' rock band. but not much more than that.

[evisu 2000]

this may be, but he wasn't the face of the beatles.

the beatles suck!!!

[chronoaug]

I'm still impressed how john lennon aged 20 years in a span of 5 years

[mr fluffernutter]

Helter Skelter is better than Gimme Shelter

[landho]

This can't be stressed enough, and the proof behind this statement comes packaged neatly in one band - dream theatre.

everyone in that band is an absolute virtuoso, but they are the fucking shittiest songwriters on the planet

i dont care if you can play flight of the bumblebee at 100000 beats per minute, if you can't write a song your band sucks

(not that the stones can't, or do)

Rush anyone? Rush? Do I hear a vote for Rush? Anyone love Rush?

(I hate Rush. If I hear that Neil Peart is "good enough to drum for a jazz band" one more time...)

[kunk75]

yeah, but getting cuckolded by clapton wasn't too cool. couldn't satisfy his woman.

john and paul? 0;

george harrison was clearly the coolest member of the beatles (0).

[evisu 2000]

yeah, but getting cuckolded by clapton wasn't too cool. couldn't satisfy his woman.

pattie boyd was a cheap jean shrimpton anyway.

[broneck]

Rush anyone? Rush? Do I hear a vote for Rush? Anyone love Rush?

(I hate Rush. If I hear that Neil Peart is "good enough to drum for a jazz band" one more time...)

I really, truly, enjoy that song YYZ. And I grew up listening to rush with my dad, so I can't hate. . .but I've definitely used them as an example of talented musicians who tend to fail as songwriters. (Neil Peart is that good though)

[kunk75]

on the rare occasion i get stoned, i listen to that rush song about the manhattan project. it is fucking hysterical and they are so earnest, it's hard not to laugh.

how about duran duran vs. depeche mode? has anyone done the cure vs. the smiths?

[broneck]

I felt that this one was more definitive and generation defining than the beatles vs. the beach boys.

feel free to start a slew of 70s/80s/90s "vs" threads.