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.
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.
While I agree that the Beatles were more innovative, I’d listen to the Stones before them every time. I just prefer it and would love to have seen them live. The Who with the original line up? I’d choose them over both.
So back to the opening question: Rolling Stones for me.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 08:12 - Jan 6 with 1539 views
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 07:06 - Jan 6 by Churchman
While I agree that the Beatles were more innovative, I’d listen to the Stones before them every time. I just prefer it and would love to have seen them live. The Who with the original line up? I’d choose them over both.
So back to the opening question: Rolling Stones for me.
That's fair enough, to be honest I don't really listen to either of them and if choosing a band from that era to listen to it'd be The Who or The Kinks. So my view is based more on who I appreciate more rather than who I'd rather listen to and on that basis the innovation of The Beatles trumps The Stones for me. That said, Paint it Black is my favourite song out of the combined back catalogue the two bands.
The Stones for me, while they may not have achieved what The Beatles did and not had the same level of innovation or song writing if you put two albums down in front of me and told me I had to listen to one it would be The Stones over The Beatles every time.
The Beatles crop up in my life and my listening on a regular basis, The Stones are in there by design.
No idea when I began here, was a very long time ago. Previously known as Spirit_of_81. Love cheese, hate the colour of it, this is why it requires some blue in it.
Having been fortunate to see both in the very early stages of their careers I would say the Stones were better live, but, as many have mentioned The Beatles had a much broader range of recorded music.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:30 - Jan 6 with 1464 views
Being born in 1950 I was a teenager when the Beatles and Stones were at their Prime. My definite favourite was the Beatles. Living in a small village we had to rely on the local bus service to get into Stowmarket. Sometimes when I knew someone was going into Stow I'd get them to get me the latest Beatles single even though I sometime hadn't heard it. Having said that in my later years I have come to appreciate the Stones music as well. I suppose the big difference for me of the two groups is that the Beatles had three talented writers in John, Paul and George and I think George was underrated.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:35 - Jan 6 with 1463 views
The Beatles are largely diamonds in dogsh1t. Plus their cynical commercial pop being revised as something other than what it was is weird. Especially when the Stones get snobs berating them ripping off the blues etc.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 19:51 - Jan 5 by Dubtractor
I love the Who's output to a point - 60s and very early 70s - but it loses me pretty dramatically after that.
Never got the Who at all. They're not dreadful or anything but I don't get the hype or love for them. Assume you had to be of a certain vintage to appreciate how they chimed in to pop culture.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:35 - Jan 6 by Mullet
The Stones by miles.
The Beatles are largely diamonds in dogsh1t. Plus their cynical commercial pop being revised as something other than what it was is weird. Especially when the Stones get snobs berating them ripping off the blues etc.
Any fans of Morrissey can't be taken seriously in a music discussion init.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:35 - Jan 6 by Mullet
The Stones by miles.
The Beatles are largely diamonds in dogsh1t. Plus their cynical commercial pop being revised as something other than what it was is weird. Especially when the Stones get snobs berating them ripping off the blues etc.
You like morrissey. Your views on music are therefore both wrong and irrelevant.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:35 - Jan 6 by Mullet
The Stones by miles.
The Beatles are largely diamonds in dogsh1t. Plus their cynical commercial pop being revised as something other than what it was is weird. Especially when the Stones get snobs berating them ripping off the blues etc.
I'm not sure anyone has tried to revise their early pop years as anything other than what they were. Chart orientated pop. But 65 onwards? Come on Mullers. You've got to give them that. Outrageous output and changed music forever. I don't think a few people digging out the Stones can ever be an excuse to call the Fabs dogsh1te. It's ok not to like them, but dogsh1te? It just undermines anything else said after that.
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 00:22 - Jan 7 with 1306 views
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:59 - Jan 6 by Mullet
Never got the Who at all. They're not dreadful or anything but I don't get the hype or love for them. Assume you had to be of a certain vintage to appreciate how they chimed in to pop culture.
Have you tried much of their stuff? Have a little dig into their catalogue. You might be surprised. As a live act they were pretty untouchable at their best.
Distortion becomes somehow pure in its wildness.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 12:17 - Jan 7 with 1238 views
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:42 - Jan 6 by blueasfook
100% The Stones. Their music is much raunchier. Also, their longevity in the business is unsurpassed.
The Beatles music will I suspect outlast the Stones. Bit difficult also replacing John Lennon and George Harrison if and I doubt it very much, the group was reformed. I suppose Joe Walsh from the Eagles, being Brother-in-Law to Ringo could fill in as he's just an amazing guitarist despite his earlier years drug and drinks problems.
0
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 12:49 - Jan 7 with 1233 views
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:42 - Jan 6 by blueasfook
100% The Stones. Their music is much raunchier. Also, their longevity in the business is unsurpassed.
Within three years The Beatles went from singing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You, Yeah Yeah Yeah" to "Turn Off Your Mind, Relax and Float Down Stream".
In their latest single, the Stones sing "It hasn't rained for a month, the river's run dry. We haven't made love and I wanna know why". They have spent 60 years trying to rewrite Willie Dixon songs.
I love the Stones. But the Beatles are light years ahead of them. With regard to those saying th Stones were far better live. We never got to see The Beatles play big stadiums with the sound equipment that the Stones had in the 70's and 80's. Most of the time the Beatles couldn't even hear themselves ply above the screaming, which is why they stopped touring in 1966. But they certainly could play.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 12:49 - Jan 7 by GlasgowBlue
Within three years The Beatles went from singing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You, Yeah Yeah Yeah" to "Turn Off Your Mind, Relax and Float Down Stream".
In their latest single, the Stones sing "It hasn't rained for a month, the river's run dry. We haven't made love and I wanna know why". They have spent 60 years trying to rewrite Willie Dixon songs.
I love the Stones. But the Beatles are light years ahead of them. With regard to those saying th Stones were far better live. We never got to see The Beatles play big stadiums with the sound equipment that the Stones had in the 70's and 80's. Most of the time the Beatles couldn't even hear themselves ply above the screaming, which is why they stopped touring in 1966. But they certainly could play.
That's all "what ifs" though isn't it. I have no doubt the Beatles would have evolved from cheesy pop songs to a bona fide rock band, and that's the way they were heading before they broke up but the fact is they didn't. Instead in the 70s we got Paul McCartneys Wings.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 10:35 - Jan 6 by Mullet
The Stones by miles.
The Beatles are largely diamonds in dogsh1t. Plus their cynical commercial pop being revised as something other than what it was is weird. Especially when the Stones get snobs berating them ripping off the blues etc.
All rock is based on the blues. Without the blues you wouldn't have rock. It's that simple.
"Blueas is a great guy, one of the best." - Donald Trump
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 13:47 - Jan 7 by blueasfook
That's all "what ifs" though isn't it. I have no doubt the Beatles would have evolved from cheesy pop songs to a bona fide rock band, and that's the way they were heading before they broke up but the fact is they didn't. Instead in the 70s we got Paul McCartneys Wings.
er The Beatles did evolve to a to a bona fide rock band.
Beatles or the Rolling Stones? on 12:49 - Jan 7 by GlasgowBlue
Within three years The Beatles went from singing "I Want To Hold Your Hand" and "She Loves You, Yeah Yeah Yeah" to "Turn Off Your Mind, Relax and Float Down Stream".
In their latest single, the Stones sing "It hasn't rained for a month, the river's run dry. We haven't made love and I wanna know why". They have spent 60 years trying to rewrite Willie Dixon songs.
I love the Stones. But the Beatles are light years ahead of them. With regard to those saying th Stones were far better live. We never got to see The Beatles play big stadiums with the sound equipment that the Stones had in the 70's and 80's. Most of the time the Beatles couldn't even hear themselves ply above the screaming, which is why they stopped touring in 1966. But they certainly could play.
The Beatles did play Shea Stadium, but the sound was not as good as the later Stones stadium gigs. I saw the Stones in the Bridges of Babylon tour. The highlight of which for me was a section when they came out into the middle of the crowd and went full tilt into old R&B numbers. The times I saw The Beatles in the mid 60s you could hardly hear them above the screaming females. As most people have stated, the Beatles recorded output was very varied and often groundbreaking.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
