To be honest though, the Beatles vs Rolling Stones is a VERY bad comparison to make. REALLY bad. For starters, they're essentially not even of the same genre! And that goes for any given period of their coexistence. If one wants to do a Beatles vs X thread, at least make sure that X is one of the melodic bands of the 60s. It would be fairer to have a Beatles vs Kinks or Beatles vs Beach Boys thread than this ridiculous comparison. I mean, just on what point can one argue that either is better than the other? In terms of catchy songs? Well, catchy songs was more the focus of the Beatles than it was of the Stones. Riffs? Well obviously the Stones would have to win that because the Beatles didn't really write that much riff driven music all in all. Quality of vocals? Well, they were singing in different styles and to different audiences. Number of memorable songs? Well, you could make an argument for the Beatles on that basis, but then a hardcore Stones fan might object and say that he/she doesn't find the Beatles' music as memorable as the best of the Stones' 60s catalogue.
|