Slowhand Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 (edited) I'm sorry, but I have to do it. My friend and I got in an argument today, and I have to know what the songfacts faithful think. This argument needs no introduction, simply: The Stones or the Beatles? Who's better? Edited August 5, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Stones or Beatles what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted August 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Who is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 They're two completely different entities with equally amazing contributions to the world of music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 I agree... Who is better Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Really how can you compare...that's like saying best guitar player, or drummer or singer....all great with different styles...Beatles have amazing talent...as do the Stones....Stones are still going to this day which is absolutely amazing, I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 why don't I ask: who's better AC/DC or Captain and Tenille? It's a question without answer... its based on taste Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Now that one I can answer, Ray... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Captain And Tenille of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLizard Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 I'll be nice and give you a second guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 I can answer too... but I'm just trying to prove a point... my parents would sure as hell not choose AC/DC... too loud for their old ears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Oh, please, of course Beatles&Stones are better than New&Kids&On&The&Block... and it´s obvious Captain&Tenille&Beatles&Stones are better than AC/DC. Now AC/DC&Captain&Tenille are better than Celine&Dion&Phil&Collins. What the question was? Love will keep us together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slowhand Posted August 5, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Okay, then maybe we should shift the argument to who had the more impressive body of work, or who was more of an infulence on rock and roll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 I gotta say, Slowhand, that I think both have had a huge influence on rock. But there's also the quote from Keith that went something like: "Even though we weren't trying to sound like them, we had some inspiration from the Beatles." (not exact quote) Kinda tough to pick from that bud... I'm guessing Keith meant for their ballads, but then again it's Keith, he may have been hi as a kite when he uttered words like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Seeker Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Oh yes, Who is better Now, I say Beatles. I've got other things on my mind right now so I'm afraid I won't be able to provide any details, but I think they were much better, they were more influential and they had a more impressive body of work. (let's disregard the fact that the Stones are still around today) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Oohh Slowhand, I have participated in this same discussion, or a variation of it, many times over the past few years. I've got my thoughts down pat. There are several questions going here: 1) Who's better (actually who's on first ): Apples and oranges, just like somebody up there has already said. Absolutely no comparison between the two. 2) which has the most impressive body of work? : Gotta go with the Stones, if only because they have continued to add to it to this day. Not only that, but they still perform in concert, and are an active prescence in today's music scene. 3) which was more influential to rock & roll music? : The Beatles. They were the first. I think the Stones would have happened anyway, but the Beatles opened doors for so many artists, and influenced styles, probably to this day! All that being said, there really are two types of people. In most cases you are either a Beatles person, or a Stones person. I don't know why, but it's true. While you may like both, there is usually a preference one way or the other. I enjoy Beatles music, but I know the Stones' and for me, they will always reign supreme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edna Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 (edited) Lucky: See, I´m definitely more a Stones person... yet I have a Beatles avatar... I found this video: "Wild Horses" and I see why I´m a Stones fan... I guess Lucky and Sammy and others will agree with me... they are special, that song is beautiful and Mick Taylor´s guitar is undescriptible. Edited August 5, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 I'm sure the Beatles would still be playing together if 1/2 the band wasnt' dead. So this argument that the Stones are still playing together is lost on me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 True Rayzor.....which is the obvious, but when I said they are still together, I didn't mean that the Beatles should of been also...I guess I just meant in general, that it's amazing that a group can still be playing for so many years....We've seen so many great groups from the 60's last only a few years...so, what I meant was just a general statement, and not really a comparison..does that make any sense?.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Would they? They had split long before half of them were dead.... And it's not just playing together. The Stones are/were still releasing new compostions, which don't do too shabbily, on Tatoo You (1980's), Voodoo Lounge (1990's) and a Bigger Bang (2000's), among others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_Laurie_ Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Damn that Yoko!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayzor Posted August 5, 2007 Report Share Posted August 5, 2007 Lucky, I was just confused about the statement. Whether the Beatles (still living) would have all gotten back together is impossible to know for sure. Ringo would have wanted a reunion, Paul... I don't think so. But look at the Police. As much as Sting hated those boys he still re-united. Maybe the Beatles would have done that long ago had John-boy not croaked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 (edited) Lucky: See, I´m definitely more a Stones person... yet I have a Beatles avatar... I found this video: "Wild Horses" and I see why I´m a Stones fan... I guess Lucky and Sammy and others will agree with me... they are special, that song is beautiful and Mick Taylor´s guitar is undescriptible. Yes it is! And given their longevity, the band is seemingly indestructable. Despite the individuals' sometimes selfdestructive behavior, the band itself is as undivided as they've always been. They squabble then they tour. (oh lordy, edna, isn't Keith just absolutely gorgeous in that? Young Keith and old! Give me that bad boy every time!) I just thought of something else... Anyone who has seem them in concert from the 90's on ( I have, twice) see's the absolute joy they get from not only the music but the playing onstage together coupled with the reaction of the crowd. Even Charlie looks pleased! You can't say that for the Police, or many others either. Edited August 6, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucky Posted August 6, 2007 Report Share Posted August 6, 2007 Sorry I keep ringing back in on this, but I've thought about this subject a lot. Some of the reasons comparing them doesn't work. Take the Beatles. Their music ran the gamut from pop, to rock'n'roll, to the mystical, and many others. They weren't afraid to be different, and innovative. The Stones were almost from the beginning, straightforward rock'n'roll. With branching out into the basic elements that rock'n'roll encompassed. Country and rockabilly, some pop, R&B and definately (granted, with the influence of The Beatles) their own Mystical period. But always that hard edged, driving rock'roll. I've always thought of The Beatles as maybe the group for the thinking man. The Stones are the barband made good. Maybe the darlings of the drinking man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now