The Rolling Stones or the Beatles?
 

As far as nitty gritty deep rock and roll goes The Stones win. The Beatles take care of the melodic and experimental side. Neil Young once said that rock n' roll could be split into two styles, The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. Someone like Neil Young would be in the Rolling Stones camp, whereas a band like Jethro Tull would be on the Beatles side. What's your opinion?

That the Beatles piss all over the Stones.

There's honestly no comparison, the Beatles are just so much better. If they wanted to they could have been a great rock band, mirroring the Stones, except for the singing.

My opinion is Neil Young is a shitface.

Tom Waits once said "they fill the children full of hate to fight an old mans war, and die along the road to peace"

This is no different.

I think they are both overrated.

This is personally a hard choice for me because I liek both bands. I picked the Stones because of their memorable guitar riffs.

Finally something we agree on.

Btw this has been done before.

Stones.

I pick The Beatles because I have a hard time telling Rolling Stones songs apart. So much for memorable, eh?

I love both bands, but purely for being experimental I have to choose the Beatles.

The Beatles by a long shot.

seriously, this is old.its quite obvious that the beatles rule over the stones, so to save another 5 polls being made on the same subject, just accept it.

Well I guess to you. Memory isn't the same too every person. You got short term memory loss, long......

I wonder what it says about a band when you're better and no one cares?

Yes, the Beatles are better, now turn Let it Bleed back on.

Yeah, I kinda forgot that everyone likes The Rolling Stones more than the Beatles. :rolleyes:

I have proof to back mine up, wheres yours. Roll yer eyes at me again boy and I'll roll em across the floor.

Thats one of the lamest threats I've ever read.

Well thats probably because you didn't say it with a pirate accent. Try it again.

/Keith Richards

I refuse to choose.

I like the "Dirtyness" or the "Working Class" sound in the stones and typically that's what a lot of my music leans to, but I like the beatles innovative, experimental side. Personally, If I was kickin about the London streets in the late sixties, I'd do my best to see them both and I bet that most of you would.

Exactly! The Stones invented the rhythm/lead guitar combination with Jones/Richards and perfected it when Mick Taylor arrived. They laid the foundation for thrash and death metal. Hetfield/Hammett, Cavalera/Kisser, Peterson/Skolnick, King/Hanneman all used the same rhythm guitarist and soloist setup. Not to mention Beggar Banquet, Let it Bleed, Get Your Ya Yas, Stickey Fingers, Exile on Main St., and It's Only Rock N Roll ... six consecutive masterpieces produced by the hottest band ever. In fact, they were on such a roll, they caused the collapse of a national government. Did I mention I pick the Stones?

Nope, The Beatles and others did that before The Stones.

Sabbath, Zeppelin and Purple much more then the Stones, though the Stones did influence those three, but they took it to another level.

:laughing:

Harrison and Lennon used it too, BEFORE Jones and Richards. And severel R&R performers did it before them.

Hard Days Night, Beatles For Sale, Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Peppers, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album and Abbey Road. If thats not a hell of a back catelog I don't know what is.

Even their worst album Let It Be was a generally good effort. As opposed to The Stones. Who haven't made a great album since Some Girls. Which is say what? Only 16 years into their 55 year career?

What?

Thems fightin' words!






















(not from me, I don't care. But somebody will!)

Boo Boo honestly tends to hold half his opinions as empirically true fact. I mean, come on. The Beatles? Love, Love me don't.

And he argues with the passion of a napkin dispenser.

Most of what I said were facts.

You really are the most pretentious douchebag I have ever encoutered on a forum. Why? Because you have convinced yourself that you possess the abillity of judging peoples sincerest emotions over the f*cking internet. What in the hell is your problem? Passion? Why should I get too worked up about something like this anyway? Am I supposed to? This is a forum not a fight to a death. I argue points, I mess with people and act out a lot. But I don't lose sleep at night just because you f*cking prefer The Stones to The Beatles.

Too much MM has damaged your fragile brain. http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y28...cons/crazy.gif

Chill out Boo...

Harrison was never considered a great soloist and consequently Beatle tunes are not remembered for their guitar work. Yes other bands had two guitarists, but it was the Stones who first featured a blues soloist and rhythm guitarists and structured their songs around them. When Taylor joined up, it was like the Stones getting Eric Clapton...their state of the art fret master. In fact it was the Stones who influenced the Beatles in this department when George and John started to jam Stones-like on the last song of Abbey Road, which was part of Lennon's scheme to try to bring the Beatles into the "purer" harder rock territory of the Stones.

The string of albums you mentioned are very respected, but compare the themes explored within them. On the one hand you got "Fixing a Hole", "Ticket to Ride", "Penny Lane", "She's Leaving Home", basically a bunch of sappy, banal, personal stuff, and on the other hand you got "Sympathy for the Devil", "Street Fighting Man", "Bitch" and "Brown Sugar", tough songs digging into the dark side of the human psyche which ushered in the dark era of rock n roll. The Stones were the first princes of Darkness and as you mentioned also paved the way for Sabbath, Zepplin and DP. The Stones and their "dark aura" dominated the 60's and 70's as well as still being influential today. I think it's obvious that in the mythically battle between good vs evil, between light and dark, between the Beatles and the Stones...the Stones have won.

But, if I was forced to boil it down to one thing, the Beatles don't have a song as good as "Satisfaction".

As far toppling a government, Maggie Trudeau, the first lady of Canada decided to ditch your husbands re-election campaign so she could get banged by Woodie.

Maybe by people who have never listened to Something, or any of his solo material. Harrison was a fantastic soloist, thing is he was a very modest fellow, they didn't call him the quiet Beatle for nothing. He didn't want to ruin great songs with long drawn out solos, which are why his solos are always sweet and to the point. Compare that to Jones' solo on Sympathy for the Devil, which was stretched out too long and was sloppy beyond belief, some may like such an approach to guitar playing but for others it can ruin a good song.

I disagree. They were not just acclaimed as songwriters, they were a tight ensemble of musicians as well. And it was their style of instrumentation that really made them stood out from other bands at the time. Day Tripper and Taxman are riffs that everybody recognises.

Yes, they are blues players. So they paved the way for the guys in Iron Maiden and Judas Priest how again?

Taylor is good. But Eric Clapton he is not.

The Mothers of Invention greatly influenced Sgt Pepper, does this make them better than The Beatles too?

Happiness is a Warm Gun anyone?

The Beatles wrote a lot of dark tracks for The White Album. And nothing really comes close to the rawness of John Lennons solo records.

I don't care how satanic they are, how does this make them better than The Beatles?

:laughing:

I give up.

Thats not quite "toppling" the Canadian goverment though.

Anyone wanna clue me in?

I passionately dispise Modest Mouse to the point that it's downright ridiculous and irritating to everyone on this forum?

Because I mention them on every thread, for no reason.

both are great. personally i like the beatles better. such soothing relaxing music for the hart...

Just thought i'd pop into this thread just to see if the myopic Beatles fans are willing to give the Stones credit for anything at all.

The answer is still no I see.

Mature and logical.

So I listen to MM too much and that makes me unable to truly appreciate the Beatles.

I wonder who MM finds themselves more influenced by.

Yeah I think it is stupid how someone can say the Stones did nothing, even compared to the Beatles.

I think Isaac said Built to Spill and Pixies were their biggest influences. But I might be wrong.

I give them credit.

But I'm not above realising that people who think they are truly better than The Beatles are being unrealistic.

I give credit to ROLLING STONES-they have made some phenomenal tracks, but they just have'nt affected modern music (for better or worse) than The Beatles. I think BOTH bands are overated. they just happened to fit into the zeitgeist of the time. Popular music was in it's infancy as a commercial commodity and both bands done extremely well out of this period. The main problem is ROLLING STONES are still going and are contributing nothing to modern music any more, and are not pushing any boundaries. The Beatles had the good grace to call it a day about 30 + years ago. HOWEVER Sgt.Peppers is not a great album. Technically brilliant, but I can't listen to it for too long.

GIMMIE SHELTER is one of the finest songs ever commited to vinyl and arguably, better than most Beatles tracks, but there just was'nt enough good tracks.

I disagree STRONGLY. It's my favorite album. Period.

It's your fave album-great I'm glad you like it-it's still highly overated. just the same as Pink Floyds DARK SIDE OF THE MOON-possibly Floyd's worse album.

Something tells me you're not being serious.