10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Necromancer · 12-20-2010, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axiomatic Wiki

I think the two bands are not really comparable. Beatles are a lot of things, but they are not what the Stones are, Hard Rock. The only things they have in common are their time periods and the impact they had on music. Anyone who prefers hard rock to psychedelic pop will most likely like the stones better, where as vice versa, would probably prefer The Beatles. Their styles are so different, and they were both innovates and masters of their styles of music.
That said, I definitely prefer The Beatles ^_^

Good post, except I prefer The Stones.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RingotheRat

1. Keith Richards , coolest guitarist on the planet- Coolest maybe but George Harrison is still tehcnically better so your point is void in my eyes. He played the first backwards guitar on 'I'm Only Sleeping' how does Richards compare to that?

Harrison's style may be more technical in theory, Richards style is more R&B/blues, basic old school Rock & Roll. Both are equal as popular guitarist.

Dr_Rez · 12-20-2010, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

I know this thread was made 5 years ago, but is The Stones vs The Beatles debate the most tired worn out debate in history?

Also, Marianne Faithfull vs Yoko Ono - Marianne.
But Marianne Faithfull vs Patti Boyd...

Its similar to the other forum i go to. Theres a Gibson vs Fender thread started almost daily.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 12-20-2010, 10:52 AM

This has to be my best wind up

5 years later and still Beatles fans can't help but bite

Badlittlekitten · 12-20-2010, 11:47 AM

Similar to what James said, Stones are technically better musicians, Beatles are better songwriters.

I like both but I prefer the Beatles to most bands.

**Janszoon** · 12-20-2010, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badlittlekitten

Similar to what James said, Stones are technically better musicians, Beatles are better songwriters.

I like both but I prefer the Beatles to most bands.

I would say the Stones are better musicians and better songwriters.

Screen13 · 12-23-2010, 03:20 PM

Both are equal in my book. I was raised on Beatles, but The Stones added on to my musical vocabulary, especially with being introduced as a kid to The Blues, leading to an interest in the real thing. They go well together.

Screen13 · 12-23-2010, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Just listen to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds & then go listen to Sister Morphine & tell me which song has the more realistic portrayal of drugs.

Although "Cold Turkey" is solo Lennon, it's just as great as "Sister Morphine," and it was released while The Beatles were still around. While Marianne's single was a true classic, John's screams and powerful guitar on his record certainly won this round. And it's a classic to cover (Re: The Godfathers...).

Screen13 · 12-23-2010, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

5. The Beatles had to have their faces on album covers , The Stones could stick a picture of a toilet on theirs & still have it sell millions.

The Beatles/White Album.

The Stones had to wait a long time for that Toilet to be unleashed to the public (2002 if I'm correct). Back in '68 you had The White Album and the Invitation album competing with each other (while The Monkees' "Mirror" album of the Soundtrack to Head was not selling as much).

s_k · 12-23-2010, 04:54 PM

Well, as for me... I like most of the beatles' music and i don't like most of the stones' music.
So yeah. Easy.

Dr_Rez · 12-26-2010, 08:56 PM

Who would win in a physical battle mite though?

12-20-2010, 10:52 AM	#293 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	This has to be my best wind up 5 years later and still Beatles fans can't help but bite __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

12-20-2010, 11:47 AM	#294 (permalink)
Badlittlekitten And then there was music Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Near Wild Heaven Posts: 287	Similar to what James said, Stones are technically better musicians, Beatles are better songwriters. I like both but I prefer the Beatles to most bands. __________________ 'Said do you feel it? Do you feel it when you TOUCH ME?. THERE'S A FIRE! THERE'S A FIRE!' The Stooges. Dirt. https://soundcloud.com/bad-little-kittens My Top 100 LPs My Top 52 Indie Tracks Of The 21st Century (incomplete)

12-23-2010, 04:54 PM	#299 (permalink)
s_k Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,206	Well, as for me... I like most of the beatles' music and i don't like most of the stones' music. So yeah. Easy. __________________ Click here to see my collection

12-26-2010, 08:56 PM	#300 (permalink)
Dr_Rez Registered Jimmy Rustler Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,361	Who would win in a physical battle mite though? __________________ Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew Always Checks Credentials Crew nba > nfl crew Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew

12-23-2010, 03:20 PM	#296 (permalink)
Screen13 Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,388	Both are equal in my book. I was raised on Beatles, but The Stones added on to my musical vocabulary, especially with being introduced as a kid to The Blues, leading to an interest in the real thing. They go well together.