By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
The Beatles were much more innovative, imo. Compare a track like Helter Skelter to something like A Day in the Life, and that's before even getting into their development from their early stuff to their later stuff. Not sure the Stones can really match up to that. I think there's a good argument that The Who are better than the Stones as well.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 19:34 - Jan 5 by Herbivore
The Beatles were much more innovative, imo. Compare a track like Helter Skelter to something like A Day in the Life, and that's before even getting into their development from their early stuff to their later stuff. Not sure the Stones can really match up to that. I think there's a good argument that The Who are better than the Stones as well.
If you wanna be a clown then join the fecking circus.
“Hello, I'm your MP. Actually I'm not. I'm your candidate. Gosh.”
Boris Johnson canvassing in Henley, 2005.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 19:34 - Jan 5 by Herbivore
The Beatles were much more innovative, imo. Compare a track like Helter Skelter to something like A Day in the Life, and that's before even getting into their development from their early stuff to their later stuff. Not sure the Stones can really match up to that. I think there's a good argument that The Who are better than the Stones as well.
I love the Who's output to a point - 60s and very early 70s - but it loses me pretty dramatically after that.
I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun.
I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
I play the Beatles far more than the Stones - but I like both,
I’ve also played the Challon piano in studio 2 at Abbey Road Studios (as featured on The Fool On The Hill). Talk about the hairs standing up on the back of your neck….
Love the stones but I just don’t like any albums post Mick Taylor. Total borefest after that in the main…..which is another 50 years of output.
Love 65-73 Stones but Beatles just pushed the boundaries more songwriting wise and sonically. I was listening to A Day In The Life while driving back from Kent the other day, I was just in awe of the songwriting and how the hell they recorded it on so few tracks with limited technology. Not heard that song in a couple of decades.
That saying there’s always one absolute stinker on most Beatles albums. 😁
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 20:11 - Jan 5 with 2330 views
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 20:08 - Jan 5 by stjohnsblue
Beatles for me ol’ chap.
Love the stones but I just don’t like any albums post Mick Taylor. Total borefest after that in the main…..which is another 50 years of output.
Love 65-73 Stones but Beatles just pushed the boundaries more songwriting wise and sonically. I was listening to A Day In The Life while driving back from Kent the other day, I was just in awe of the songwriting and how the hell they recorded it on so few tracks with limited technology. Not heard that song in a couple of decades.
That saying there’s always one absolute stinker on most Beatles albums. 😁
So you're saying quit while you're ahead is the answer?
Should add to the OP, that I think the Beatles are great, I'm just here for the swagger that the Stones bring. Or the roll as Lucan put it.
I was born underwater, I dried out in the sun.
I started humping volcanoes baby, when I was too young.
The Beatles every time for me, but that's not to dismiss the Stones. Much of their work from 68 to 74 is incredible. However, much of their work is similar. The Beatles on the other hand from 62 to 70 are just off the charts regarding innovation, especially from 65 onwards. It's almost unfathomable that in just two years they released Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper. Two years FFS!
That said, for pure excitement, energy and just general abandonment I go for The Who every time. They are my favourite band.
I'm just happy for all three bands to be there for me when I need them.
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
1
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 20:20 - Jan 5 with 2314 views
As I often have to drive a lot for work, I decided to spend a Summer going through the Stones catalogue and then followed by the Beatles. Anyway, I preferred the Stones. I can appreciate with the Beatles how innovative they were, their song writing prowess and how influential they are , as were the Stones ,but, the Stones fitted with me more. So many of their albums have such amazing songs but are surrounded by tunes that leave me cold which I don't find with the Stones.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 20:43 - Jan 5 with 2261 views
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 20:18 - Jan 5 by Whos_blue
The Beatles every time for me, but that's not to dismiss the Stones. Much of their work from 68 to 74 is incredible. However, much of their work is similar. The Beatles on the other hand from 62 to 70 are just off the charts regarding innovation, especially from 65 onwards. It's almost unfathomable that in just two years they released Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper. Two years FFS!
That said, for pure excitement, energy and just general abandonment I go for The Who every time. They are my favourite band.
I'm just happy for all three bands to be there for me when I need them.
Yes. The answer is both. Beatles went from playing rock and roll covers to Revolver in 6/7 years; Stones in their prime made some vital, exciting music but were essentially a blues band.
[Post edited 5 Jan 21:21]
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 20:47 - Jan 5 with 2243 views
The Beatles for innovation, catalogue of work, SERGEANT PEPPER album. But Stones tracks are more 'real' less perfect contructions. 'Satisfaction' going up river on full blast in Apocalypse Now, in Vietnam, the Rock & Roll War...
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 21:29 - Jan 5 with 2166 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
