Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DOORSFREAKINAWESOME

Stones vs. Beatles

Recommended Posts

Once I see 'The Beatles' in any competition, I don't give much thought about who they're up against ... well maybe 'The Partridge Family'. I might have to give that one some thought ;)

What am I saying? I actually like 'The Partridge Family'. I still have a couple of their records laying around.

:guitar:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most people are either Beatles people or Stones people. I don't think their music can be compared, they are really different styles.The Beatles were great no doubt about it. :bow: For my vote though, it's definatly the Rolling Stones. They are true rock n' roll start to finish. :rockon:

And they're still going!! :guitar:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BeatleAnt....thanks for coming out with the Partridge Family. I actually listen to their greatest hits CD once in awhile. Good sing along music.

As for the great debate.....the Stones and Beatles are both great! My choice is the Beatles. I do like the Stones but the versatility of the Beatles make them my choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ya'll are right about apples and oranges and good boys and bad. Funny how things have turned out though. The Bad Boys are still making music, Mick is now Sir Mick, and Jade, his daughter is the Royal Jeweler( in charge of all the royal jewels!) Just another case of local bad boy makes good. :rockon: Stones Forever! (literally!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Such a hard decision. *Apple and oranges indeed but which would you choose if you could have only one, for the rest of your life? The apple or the orange?

I kinda like these questions because it racks my brain. Both bands are so differently good. I guess I ask myself which band I'd miss less.

I'll take the apple.

*Apple=Beatles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm, this is such a hard decision. I discovered the charms of the Rolling Stones before the Beatles, but I now have come to love the Beatles just as much. I think if I had to really only pick one, I'd go with the Rolling Stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big fan for classifying the Beatles as "good boys" maybe in their early days (like 59-64) then their innocence started to fade.

Just an observation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's exactly right Scott, the Beatles were no 'good boys', it was all just a press beat-up.

I quote:

"From the outside, it seemed like the Beatles were the fresh-faced fab mop tops and we (The Rolling Stones) were totally the other end of the spectrum. But they were just as filthy as we were." - Keith Richards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a big fan of both groups and know that both groups had a big impact on music history as well as people. Although, the Stones had much more sex and drug music, the Beatles' music were much more developed and original.

I do not think people should be dissing the Beatles, because of their personality. They were different! Big freaking deal, we are all unique. Have any reason to dis the Beatles do it on account of their music, but not their personalities. That is all I've got to say.

Brandon8528

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also the Beatles songwriting seemed more developed than the stones simply because the stones relied on songs about sex,drugs,rock & roll. No brainer. The Beatles :rockon:

Plenty of Beatles' songs reference drugs, sex, rock and roll. Listen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of Beatles' songs reference drugs, sex, rock and roll. Listen again.

He said the stones relied on songs about sex, drugs, rock and roll...the beatles have songs about these and many other things in life, like LOVE for instance? Uhm, no, YOU listen again. :laughing:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow!! I just happened to look back at this thread and boy, it got a little nasty. I didn't diss the Beatles at all, they were abslutely genius. Like it was put before it's just a matter of taste. Who cares if either used sex, drugs, love or pain as inspiration or lyrics? IMO the Beatles music was "intelligent" and thought provoking at times. They were fantastic, no ones disputing that. The Stones are just a good ol' rock n roll bar band. the rock n roll band. That happens to be my taste. It's funny though, the Beatle fans here seemed to get just a leeetle defensive! Lighten up guys. ;) And I liked the Monkees too! So there. :angel:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A competition between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, an old and somewhat overrated one since its actually a popularity contest, a contest in other words of opinion NOT a contest of facts: musical genius, innovation, influence and intellectual growth and depth.

Everyone however is entitled to his or her own opinions and preferences, which must be respected. Some like the Rolling Stones others the Beatles; it is all a matter of taste.

For me it has to be the Beatles. In my opinion they were and are the greatest, most influential act of the popular music era. Today their music is as fresh, timeless, excellent, ingenious and influential as it was decades ago, enjoyable to all sorts of people, young or old. The Beatles experimented, matured and diversified musically, creating some of the finest, most unique songs ever heard, at an incredible rate considering their relatively short life as a band (which makes their accomplishments all the more astounding) and were never interested in repeating the same old sound, genre or formula which is what I think the Stones tended to do (music that was popular but dull).

Its true the Stones were influential in aspects of rock music, hard rock specifically, but the Beatles were influential to bands from the BeeGees to Genesis; in other words to almost every aspect of music. There are arguably no better hard rock bands then the Rolling Stones but there is certainly no better popular music band then the Beatles.

*Note: Longevity as an active band does not exactly prove popularity since the Beatles had more #1 albums and singles in 8 years then the Rolling Stones had in 40 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These Polls about who is 'better' are always very silly, because its not about who is 'better' or who is 'best'. It's about who you like the most which is not the same thing.

This particular popularity contest is particularly silly, because I have never - in 40 years - seen a poll in which the Rolling Stones topped The Beatles. In one of the nationwide end-of-millennium polls, The Beatles were voted the top group of the millennium, amassing over 20% of all votes polled - the clearest victors in any category. The Rolling Stones were 3rd.

Every (sensible) poll I've seen about 'best single' or 'best album' usually has about 5 or 6 Beatles' entries in each compared to one by The Stones in a list of 100.

So, The Beatles are always going to be considered 'better' than The Rolling Stones because they are (and always have been) more popular. And popularity has nothing to do with being better. [is Usher 'better' than Otis Redding?]

The Stones, I think, were 'better' live performers than The Beatles. Well, I would say that The Beatles' performances deteriorated during their heyday, whilst The Stones went from strength to strength. The Stones also released some cracking singles. Is not "Jumpin' Jack Flash" 'better' than "Lady Madonna"? Is not "Paint It Black" 'better' than 'Yellow Submarine'? Is not "Honky Tonk Woman" 'better' (or at least as good as) "Get Back" and are not "We Love You", "Dandilion", "Ruby Tuesday" and "Let's Spend The Night Together" all 'better' than "Hello Goodbye"?

However, The Beatles strength lay in their versatility, their technical competence as songwriters and the production skills of their Producer. And whilst The Stones made consistently great singles, their albums were often a bit of a let down - something that cannot be said about The Beatles' albums, which were always 'pushing the envelope' that little bit further each time and remain thouroughly enjoyable time(less) pieces.

Also, let us not forget, that The Stones relied on Lennon/McCartney for their second single (possibly pulling off a 'better' performance of it than The Beatles, themselves!) and only started to write their own songs after John and Paul showed Mick and Keith how 'easy' it was to do.

So, in summary, apart from live performances, The Beatles have to be the "better" of the two bands. They are certainly my "favourite" band. Maybe The Stones might have been more popular today if they had called it a day in, say, 1981[?]

Martin

===============================================

The love you take is equal to the love you make

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with your analysis Martin (22779): popularity is not synonymous with greatness; contrary to popular opinion, the one does not determine the other. The reason, it seems, why people think the Beatles are the best is because the majority (fans and critics alike) believe this to be true, that is, the Beatles have always been and will always be more popular then the Rolling Stones overall. If it were the other way around the Stones would be regarded as ?better?. Therefore as was previously stated this popularity contest is pointless because the answer is already known and trivial since people will base their answer on their own preferences only.

However it is my opinion that the Beatles are the best quite simply because they are superior in the most crucial areas of making music especially songwriting ability both lyrically and musically, the genius of which is evident in their brilliant, groundbreaking albums and diverse songs (from ?Can?t Buy Me Love? to ?Helter Skelter?!). As for comparing Beatles and Stones songs again it is far too subjective a question to say for sure which are ?better? but count my vote for the former band?s work.

Finally, as for the Rolling Stones being better live performers well that?s in the eye of the beholder I suppose (concerts come and go but the music is forever) but I do think it was needlessly arrogant for them to bill themselves as ?The World?s Greatest Rock and Roll Band?. Would they have been regarded as great if no one came to their concerts or bought their records? No, so again greatness is based upon popularity. This philosophy tends to incorrectly promote that which in my opinion is inferior and sometimes ignores that which is worth listening too.

I suppose that?s the difference between the record buying public and critics: the public wants what is new and ?in? and supplies their wants for the time but the critics, hopefully, evaluate impartial to sales and from a more technical not a personal viewpoint.

:headphones:

Annabelle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, i think i would have to pick Keith Richards over John Lennon anyday. Both awesome bands though, and yes, very different styles. The Rolling Stones just fit my style more.

You see, that really isn't fair. John Lennon was a mere rythme guitarist. Now if you said George Harrison, that's another story. I like George Harrison's Guitar work more than I like Keith Richards.

I'd definetly pick the Beatles.Sgt. Pepper's is my #2 all-time album

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...