10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

The Monkey · 12-05-2009, 03:54 AM

I couldn't find the "official" RS threadso I'll just put it here.

Axiomatic Wiki · 12-05-2009, 05:06 AM

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 ^_^

Urban Hat€monger ? · 12-05-2009, 07:50 AM

They found the follow up letter too

Petula07 · 01-28-2010, 08:14 AM

Haha, interesting thread

I see threads with polls are closed so I have something what I want to post here.
As a member of Postcrossing I received yesterday one postcard which really fits to this thread

Well, both bands are great and I like and listen to both!
But... I prefer The Beatles. Not because they would be better for me. Probably they aren't but it was first music of my childhood. So I have some melancholic reasons why I still like them.
If I count it in general, music of Rolling Stones is now closer to my taste. So what to choose? I don't know, they are just different.

TheBig3 · 01-28-2010, 08:46 AM

I love this ****ing thread.

RingotheRat · 12-20-2010, 04:15 AM

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?

2. Mick Jagger, greatest frontman of all time- non-specific and not relevent to what it is your trying to argue these are opinions not facts so again not valid in my eyes.

3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful, back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with? -John fell in love with Yoko get over it, it's irrelivant to their music although it did argueably break up the band besides the Beatles had nice wives and girlfriends too it's very easy to choose the worst (although actually the worst would be Heather Mills) Cynthia was lovely.

4. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are better than kiddie love songs & mystical bollocks.
Beatles - Wrote chart friendly pop songs & ballads. Stones wrote gritty hard rock songs -There is nothing childish with a bit of optimism and nothign special or unique about misery the charts are full of it and to be honest that's not what I listen to music for. That said the Beatles spanned the genres you can't pen them into a catergory if you want misery listen to 'Yer Blues' if you want rejection listen to 'No Reply' if you want drugs listen to 'Doctor Robert' I could go on...

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. -Simply not true look at The White Album, The Beatles could have nothing at all on their cover and still sell it in millions.

6. Stones - The 70s , Exile On Main Street, Sticky Fingers, It`s Only Rock n Roll
Beatles - The 70s , Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting & Ringo Starr solo albums *shudder* -Yoko Ono ISN'T The Beatles she's not in the band and therefore you can't take her into account whereas you ought to take into account songs like 'Jealous Guy', 'Imagine', 'Woman', 'Watching the Wheels' that make up for anything. And Paul's work in the 70s wasn't that bad he still had some great songs and once Wings found their feet they were a good band.

7. The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn`t hack it , Keith Richards played an entire gig at gunpoint. -The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn't hear themselves play and they didn't want to be playing badly, it was a step away from their commercial image and once they moved away from live performances they put together some albums unlike anything heard before or after.

8. Charlie Watts would never lower himself to doing Thomas The Tank Engine voiceovers. -It's not about pride, Thomas the Tank Engine used to be a charming programme and if there is one thing The Beatles had it was charm- not a reason to put them down. I don't think Charlie Watts would have been invited in the first place to be honest.

9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus , Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss.
Both bad yes but if forced at gunpoint I know what i`m going to choose. -I like the Frog Chrous, it's sweet not everything has to be cynical to have value. And I love Paul's blind optimism it's one of the things that makes him my favourite Beatle.

10 Apperence , looking like you just got dragged from the street > Matching suits. How many bands these days look like this... -Another stupid point as they only wore the suits in their first few years it's just the image that stuck and it's not an image they initially chose for themselves either although I quite like it. But if you look at what they wore in the late 60s you'd see why your very wrong.

Dr_Rez · 12-20-2010, 07:41 AM

Wow Rat you take what Urban says entirely to seriously and straight forward. Its an opinion, ya know that thing thats different from person to person?

~~James~~ · 12-20-2010, 07:48 AM

Harrison is a more talented guitarist than Richards? Lolwut?

TheCunningStunt · 12-20-2010, 07:52 AM

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...

~~James~~ · 12-20-2010, 07:54 AM

My opinion is that The Stones are the better band, but The Beatles released better music. If that makes any sense at all.

12-05-2009, 05:06 AM	#282 (permalink)
Axiomatic Wiki Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Souvlaki Space Station Posts: 99	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 ^_^ __________________ http://www.last.fm/user/AxiomaticWiki Last edited by Axiomatic Wiki; 12-05-2009 at 05:28 AM.

12-05-2009, 07:50 AM	#283 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	They found the follow up letter too __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

01-28-2010, 08:14 AM	#284 (permalink)
Petula07 ♫ Music 'n' Sun ♫ Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Prague Posts: 388	Haha, interesting thread I see threads with polls are closed so I have something what I want to post here. As a member of Postcrossing I received yesterday one postcard which really fits to this thread Well, both bands are great and I like and listen to both! But... I prefer The Beatles. Not because they would be better for me. Probably they aren't but it was first music of my childhood. So I have some melancholic reasons why I still like them. If I count it in general, music of Rolling Stones is now closer to my taste. So what to choose? I don't know, they are just different. __________________ *Take whatever comes to you 'cause time flies...* ♫ ♫ Some Song ♫ ♫ Last.fm ♫ ♫ Some Song ♫ ♫ Last edited by Petula07; 01-28-2010 at 08:24 AM.

01-28-2010, 08:46 AM	#285 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	I love this ****ing thread. __________________ I've moved to a new address

12-20-2010, 04:15 AM	#286 (permalink)
RingotheRat Groupie Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 1	Most of the things you've said are wrong and here's why: 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? 2. Mick Jagger, greatest frontman of all time- non-specific and not relevent to what it is your trying to argue these are opinions not facts so again not valid in my eyes. 3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful, back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with? -John fell in love with Yoko get over it, it's irrelivant to their music although it did argueably break up the band besides the Beatles had nice wives and girlfriends too it's very easy to choose the worst (although actually the worst would be Heather Mills) Cynthia was lovely. 4. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are better than kiddie love songs & mystical bollocks. Beatles - Wrote chart friendly pop songs & ballads. Stones wrote gritty hard rock songs -There is nothing childish with a bit of optimism and nothign special or unique about misery the charts are full of it and to be honest that's not what I listen to music for. That said the Beatles spanned the genres you can't pen them into a catergory if you want misery listen to 'Yer Blues' if you want rejection listen to 'No Reply' if you want drugs listen to 'Doctor Robert' I could go on... 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. -Simply not true look at The White Album, The Beatles could have nothing at all on their cover and still sell it in millions. 6. Stones - The 70s , Exile On Main Street, Sticky Fingers, It`s Only Rock n Roll Beatles - The 70s , Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting & Ringo Starr solo albums shudder -Yoko Ono ISN'T The Beatles she's not in the band and therefore you can't take her into account whereas you ought to take into account songs like 'Jealous Guy', 'Imagine', 'Woman', 'Watching the Wheels' that make up for anything. And Paul's work in the 70s wasn't that bad he still had some great songs and once Wings found their feet they were a good band. 7. The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn`t hack it , Keith Richards played an entire gig at gunpoint. -The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn't hear themselves play and they didn't want to be playing badly, it was a step away from their commercial image and once they moved away from live performances they put together some albums unlike anything heard before or after. 8. Charlie Watts would never lower himself to doing Thomas The Tank Engine voiceovers. -It's not about pride, Thomas the Tank Engine used to be a charming programme and if there is one thing The Beatles had it was charm- not a reason to put them down. I don't think Charlie Watts would have been invited in the first place to be honest. 9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus , Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss. Both bad yes but if forced at gunpoint I know what i`m going to choose. -I like the Frog Chrous, it's sweet not everything has to be cynical to have value. And I love Paul's blind optimism it's one of the things that makes him my favourite Beatle. 10 Apperence , looking like you just got dragged from the street > Matching suits. How many bands these days look like this... -Another stupid point as they only wore the suits in their first few years it's just the image that stuck and it's not an image they initially chose for themselves either although I quite like it. But if you look at what they wore in the late 60s you'd see why your very wrong.

12-05-2009, 03:54 AM	#281 (permalink)
The Monkey Music Addict Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Sweden Posts: 803	I couldn't find the "official" RS threadso I'll just put it here.

12-20-2010, 07:41 AM	#287 (permalink)
Dr_Rez Registered Jimmy Rustler Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,361	Wow Rat you take what Urban says entirely to seriously and straight forward. Its an opinion, ya know that thing thats different from person to person? __________________ 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

12-20-2010, 07:48 AM	#288 (permalink)
~~James~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,483	Harrison is a more talented guitarist than Richards? Lolwut?

12-20-2010, 07:52 AM	#289 (permalink)
TheCunningStunt love will tear you apart Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Manchester, UK. Posts: 5,107	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... __________________ I don't feel and I feel great. Last FM

12-20-2010, 07:54 AM	#290 (permalink)
~~James~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Scotland Posts: 4,483	My opinion is that The Stones are the better band, but The Beatles released better music. If that makes any sense at all.