PDA

View Full Version : Who do you like more, The Beatles or Stones?



Dave IS VH
02-10-2004, 01:21 AM
Which of the two bands, do you like more? The Beatles, or the Rolling Stones?

We all know, what (the Beatles, and Rolling Stones) have done in the Music Business.

Both are considered to be, the two most successful bands in music history, with album sales, sold out shows, and just the fact everyone considers them (Legends).

Panamark
02-10-2004, 01:53 AM
I like both, but the Beatles were first. Stones were more R&B influenced and the Beatles more Rock/Pop. I prefer the Rock side of things.

Golden AWe
02-10-2004, 09:21 AM
The early Stones and the Beatles after the boy band-era...

btw, there's at least one thing about the Beatles that is underrated and that's Mr. George Harrison. He was way overshadowed by McCartney and Lennon though he wrote some of the best Beatles tunes like "Long and winding road"

flappo
02-10-2004, 12:07 PM
..he also wrote something - the song that frank sinatra called the gratest love song ever written

stones best stuff was satisfaction era

otherwise theyre crap

cant play and cant sing and cant write fer shit

flappo
02-10-2004, 12:08 PM
beatles are vastly sueprior in every way imaginable

to even compare the stones to the beat;es is an insult

Mr Grimsdale
02-10-2004, 12:30 PM
yeah Something is terrific, don't forget Here Comes The Sun for top pop songwriting

bor bor (I'm Ivor the Engine)

Golden AWe
02-10-2004, 01:13 PM
Those three, "Long and...", "Something" and "Here comes the sun" are perfect songs...

His solo-era: "All things must pass" is a masterpiece, in my opinion "Isn't it a pity" is his finest solowork...

And yes, I voted for The Beatles...if somebody didn't get it from the 6-0 vote situation at the monitor

High Life Man
02-10-2004, 01:44 PM
I hate the Beatles.

Never liked them...and my parents were huge fans.

I guess I like the Stones better since they're based on more the Chicago blues sound I love so much.

Ally_Kat
02-10-2004, 01:45 PM
i dont really care for either, although I will admit to liking Get off of My Cloud

Va Beach VH Fan
02-10-2004, 08:02 PM
I have always thought that the Stones were extremely overrated....

Especially Keith and Ron.....

alexpgrimes
02-10-2004, 10:45 PM
Ummmm Do I get a third choice???

DLR7884
02-11-2004, 01:03 AM
Sure Led Zeppelin is the third choice.

DLR7884
They were better than both the Beatles and Stones.

DLR7884
02-11-2004, 01:09 AM
Out of the Stones and Beatels, I'd vote Stones.

More my kinda music. Although when the Beatles started using drugs, their music got way better.

DLR7884
Except that Indian shit they did (the sithar?).

Panamark
02-11-2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Golden AWe
The early Stones and the Beatles after the boy band-era...

btw, there's at least one thing about the Beatles that is underrated and that's Mr. George Harrison. He was way overshadowed by McCartney and Lennon though he wrote some of the best Beatles tunes like "Long and winding road"

Is that true ? All this time I thought Paul wrote that one. I knew George wrote here comes the sun, and Something, he also wrote "While my Guitar gently weeps" A song heavily plaguerised by
Cheap Trick. (If you want my love you got it)

George used to own a House on Hamilton Island (One of the Barrier
Reef Islands in Oz). I knew the staff at the time on Hamilton Island,
and they reckon he was a great bloke. Used to mingle with the normal
folk regularly and even jammed with the resort band now and again.
Seems he didnt let fame fuck him up. Too bad the cigarettes did.

Mr Badguy
02-11-2004, 07:28 AM
If they had both quit in 1970, nobody would be talking about The Stones these days.

I think it`s only their longevity that makes them "legendary".

You can`t compare anything the Stones did to, for instance, the brilliant suite of songs on side two of "Abbey Road" or anything from "Revolver".

The Beatles revolutionized rock music where as the Stones were just part of the late sixties British blues boom.

The Beatles, hands down, no arguemant.

Golden AWe
02-11-2004, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by Panamark
Is that true ? All this time I thought Paul wrote that one. I knew George wrote here comes the sun, and Something, he also wrote "While my Guitar gently weeps"



My mistake, I ment "While my guitar gently weeps"

Bob_R
02-11-2004, 04:53 PM
My vote goes to the Stones.

DLR7884
02-12-2004, 05:29 PM
If the Stones quit in 1970 you'd be right that they wouldn't have been remembered or highly touted. But some of the shit they did in the 1970's defined what the band is.

DLR7884
So your point isn't valid....at all.

High Life Man
02-12-2004, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by DLR7884
If the Stones quit in 1970 you'd be right that they wouldn't have been remembered or highly touted. But some of the shit they did in the 1970's defined what the band is.

DLR7884
So your point isn't valid....at all.

Agreed...I love Some Girls (i think that came out in 1980) and Sticky Fingers.

Awesome shit.

Gmoney
02-12-2004, 07:57 PM
No contest....The Beatles!!

Mr Grimsdale
02-13-2004, 09:50 AM
personally i reckon they both come a poor second to bananarama

flappo
02-13-2004, 10:01 AM
..agadoo doo shake and vac

Panamark
02-13-2004, 10:22 AM
Those chicks must have been into fruit and veg dildos.

Coyote
02-13-2004, 07:24 PM
Stones, all the way.

Better drinkin' music, IMO... :gulp:

ELVIS
02-14-2004, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Golden AWe
The early Stones and the Beatles after the boy band-era...

btw, there's at least one thing about the Beatles that is underrated and that's Mr. George Harrison. He was way overshadowed by McCartney and Lennon though he wrote some of the best Beatles tunes like "Long and winding road"

Paul McCartney wrote that...

Golden AWe
02-15-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by ELVIS
Paul McCartney wrote that...

I think I already mentioned my mix-up earlier in the thread in case you bothered to read it through :)

DavidLeeNatra
02-17-2004, 04:47 AM
never digged the beatles...my mother liked them and my father was into elvis and a huge stones fan...and there was some kind of macho-thing going on in my place...fuck the beatles, they are highly overrated...and influenced people like the BeeGees and these oasis tea-bags...and fuck all you stones bashers...mick maybe a pussy but KEEF RULES !!!

Wayne L.
03-05-2004, 12:54 PM
I have been a dedicated Beatles/Stones fan for a long time now so I think both of these legendary 60's rock bands are equally great. My favorite period from these two legendary rock bands are late 60's Beatles with their image, their longer hair, their outspoken attitude & their back to basics rock & roll approach with a harder edge. My favorite period for the Stones are late 60'/early 70's with their music, their image & their bad ass attitude which is the way I will always remember them.

Mr Grimsdale
03-05-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by Panamark
Those chicks must have been into fruit and veg dildos.

i do hope so
anyone got any pictures?

BrownSound1
03-05-2004, 06:45 PM
Stones by a mile...I have always liked the rawer approach to rock as opposed to the spit and polish that are given to some bands. However, I do respect the Beatles place and influence in music so I'm not totally down on them.

S.P.G
03-08-2004, 07:13 PM
they're both very over-rated. the stones more so!

i guess that means the beatles then?

Mr Grimsdale
03-09-2004, 05:34 AM
forgive him, he likes the cheeky girls

S.P.G
03-09-2004, 04:38 PM
the cheeky girls?

you bought them up in that other thread!

i got the impression you liked them?

and they are both drivel!

S.P.G
03-09-2004, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by S.P.G

and they are both drivel!

the beatles and the stones i mean. as well as the cheeky girls?

Mr Grimsdale
03-10-2004, 09:09 AM
personally i'm more of a fast food rockers fan myself but each to his own

S.P.G
03-10-2004, 02:11 PM
kentucky fried chicken and a pizza hut...

Mr Grimsdale
03-10-2004, 02:56 PM
oh yes
can you do the dance too?

such fine performers

Figs
04-30-2005, 04:57 PM
I like the Stones, but no one holds a candle to the Beatles. No one.

DrMaddVibe
04-30-2005, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Mr Badguy
You can`t compare anything the Stones did to, for instance, the brilliant suite of songs on side two of "Abbey Road" or anything from "Revolver".

I'll take "Let It Bleed" and "Sticky Fingers" any day over those 2.

The Beatles are great, but their depth of material is severely lacking. Lumping in their solo work even! They started getting limp wristed with "Let It Be" so maybe it was best that they didn't keep up the gig.

The Stones on the other hand never forgot where they came from. Their blues infused brand of rock n' roll is on every album. Even the "disco" album "Emotional Rescue" has "Let Me Go" and "Down In The Hole". They never forgot what they were good at.

Don't be hatin' the Stones because they're good at hanging around. Blame the newer bands that are out today that'll NEVER have a career as long or as deep as either one of these!

Bill Lumbergh
05-01-2005, 12:01 AM
The Beatles, hands down. Never given two shits about the Stones.........BIG John Lennon fan here.

Jérôme Frenchise
05-01-2005, 10:01 AM
Nobody can seriously question the Beatles' value. The biggest part of what they recorded was high-quality stuff, some of it was even avant-garde, etc.
But they were the good boys. The Stones were the nasty ones, who thrashed the Beatles ON STAGE.
I feel a lot of respect for the Beatles too, I dig songs like "A day in the life", "Back in the USSR", "Get back", "Yer blues", "While my guitar gently weeps", "Ole brown shoe"... But I haven't got a single record by them. I listen to them at my sisters's or my parents's :) .
Yet I have ALL the Stones's albums, plus rare stuff and about two dozens of bootlegs.
Earlier DLR7884 said Led Zep' was a third choice. Sure. They're one of my very favs, so I'd agree. But while Beatles and Stones were struggling hard to get the highest sales, THE WHO musically got out while the going was good in the sixties, in retrospect.

FORD
05-01-2005, 10:18 AM
I think I skipped this thread the first time around because for me, it's an impossible choice, as I have every recording I can get my hands on from both bands.

In terms of songwriting, I gotta go with John Lennon.

But as far as a live band goes, nobody beats the Mick Taylor - era Stones.....
http://micktaylor.free.fr/gallery/1973-1.jpg

ThrillsNSpills
05-01-2005, 10:43 AM
My user name is from If You Can't Rock Me.

It's like comparing apples to oranges.
Beatles have Stones on harmony and composition.
Stones have the Beatles on groove and feel.
I agree with the Mick Taylor comment but the Brian Jones years had a great vibe as well. Psychedelic, and bizarre arrangement of sounds, particularly background harmonies were common in the mid 60's.

Both bands have songs I can't get sick of, like No Reply and Monkey Man .
I kind of lost track of the Stones post-Tattoo You, but how much can a band go without repeating itself. I still like most of it.
Both bands are certainly first rate examples of chemistry between members.
If I had to choose though, I'd give it to Beatles for song quality.

Terry
05-02-2005, 12:42 PM
Stones. Not even close, really.

Don't even have much use for the Beatles at all until around the Rubber Soul/Revolver period, and about the only album of theirs I could make it through without skipping tracks would be Abbey Road, which I do think is pretty brilliant. Would definitely say the Beatles output from 1966 to 1970 is the only period of the band I care to listen to.

Stones just rock harder, and their stuff appeals to me a lot more. Especially from about 1968 and Beggars Banquet through Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and on to Exile On Main Street. Shit like All Down The Line, Soul Survivor, Shine A Light, Sway, Monkey Man....wow! Still holds up today. Then the Stones had another decent period from 1978 to 1981, with Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You. After 1981, Stones have a dicey output, but overall there are a lot more tunes in their arsenal that get me rocking vs. the Beatles. Plus, McCartney is a wanker.

DrMaddVibe
05-02-2005, 02:06 PM
Ahhhmmm....

"Saint Of Me"?