10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
 

1. Keith Richards , coolest guitarist on the planet

2. Mick Jagger , greatest frontman of all time

3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful ,back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with ?

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

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.

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*

7. The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn`t hack it , Keith Richards played an entire gig at gunpoint.

8. Charlie Watts would never lower himself to doing Thomas The Tank Engine voiceovers.

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.

10 Apperence , looking like you just got dragged from the street > Matching suits. How many bands these days look like this...

http://donmarko99.free.fr/Autres/Beatles.jpg

And how many bands these days look like this ....

http://www.zenuk.com/pics/otherartists/stones1966.jpg

No contest

11. When the Stones had a strop with each other they didn't start a cat fight that's carried on for 30 years despite one of the people involved in the cat fight being dead.

They were both equally as good at what they were supposed to do

But personally point number 4 is all i need, prefer Stones rock music over pop music any day

before you attack me, i love both these bands...however...
points 1 and 2 are matters of opionion. its subjective. point 3 is totally irrevelant to the topic. how does the woman on your arm effect how good the music is? point 4- again its personal opinion. some people prefered the flower-power hippy idealisms to the rock n roll facade in the 60s. no. 5 is not entirely correct as the white album, yellow submarine and 1 did not feature their faces. Anyway, merely having the band name is just as effective as the band pictures and im pretty sure the stones had their name on every frontcover of their albums. no. 7...how does playing at gunpoint make you a better band than someone else? no. 9 wasnt exactly the bands was it? they were solo projects and we're not talking about solos. no. 10, the beatles image was pure 60s- it was the fad of the day just as the long haired, emo look is nowadays. did the stones crasck america in anyway near the extent the beatles did? im sure they didnt. granted the stones have had a longer career and that is the mark of a great band. but i still prefer the beatles

It's all opinion. If you like the Beatles appearence, music, and lyrics you listen to the Beatles. Likewise for Rolling Stones. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are not necesarily better than the Beatles love songs, thats just what you may be into. You can only say that The Rolling Stones are a better band then the Beatles in your opinion. They maybe more musically talented then them but they're not better than them.

Why have message boards at all? Why post? We should just come here everyday and post what we like and no one should do anything but agree. Thats as boring as hell. He made good points and you can't refute them so you go "well thats all a matter of opinion." Why open your mouth? If you know its opinion then don't join in the damn argument. You ruin it for everyone else who wants to try to persuade people with their own arguments. Sweet Jesus, if ever we need to make a rule for these boards it should be to never mention opinon or reference it in anyway.

point four basically makes no sense. Although the beatles were basically a mainstream pop band, they did write about meaningful things. Death, drugs (yes a lot of their songs were actually about drugs, just with codes in their lyrics because at the time the beatles came out, drugs were way more underground than when the stones came out), among those, the death of the monarchy and church in britain, alot of their songs are extremely deep, you're just not listening close enough, the meaning is there, but it's expressed through metaphors.

i've always preferred the Rolling Stones to the Beatles. probably because that's one of those bands i was brought up on.

Drugs were 'mainstream' even before the beatles , the teddy boys used to swallow uppers & shoot speed in the late 50s early 60s just as much as the punks did in the 70s. Yes you are right , the Beatles did sing about drugs , but they dressed them up with so many metaphores they ended up sounding like childrens nursary rhymes. 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.

everyone has a right to say what they want regardless of people like you telling them they shouldnt. anyway, opinion is an arguement in itself, what other way can you say to someone "on no, jagger isnt the best frontman ever?" opinion is the basis of every arguement. you cannot objectively proove anyone is better than anyone else. anfd how does it spoil it for everyone else?!

But you`ve missed the most obvious point. This thread isn`t about Mick Jagger being the best frontman in the world. It`s about the Stones being better than the Beatles. Yes it is only opinion , but the Beatles didn`t have a frontman , so to me that makes Jagger a better frontman than anyone in the Beatles by default.

Besides isn`t it obvious by the title of this thread that this is going to be a one sided arguement. Tell me i`m wrong , tell me i`m an ******* , come up with a list why the Beatles were better show some PASSION ... don`t just say 'well it`s your opinion' like some bleeding heart liberal & leave it at that.

sorry but im not going to call you a ******* just because you think somebody is better than somebody else- that isnt the way i work.
however, isnt the fact all 4 members of the beatles were able to act as frontman a point in their favour? and isnt the fact they have the biggest british selling album of all time another point? and isnt the fact they had 28 number ones a mark of one of the finest bands ever? i know your saying the stones were a better rock band- and rock bands dont care too much for chart success- but the success the beatles had is unequalled and i just think that alone makes them the best british band in history. your talking about woman associated with the groups and playing gigs at gunpoint but to me that is comnpletely irrelevant to who was the best band.also, what does the solo exploits of starr, McCartney and jagger have to do with the BANDS themselves? and anyway, even if we were talking about solo success, id like to see jagger produce something anywhere near as good as imagine or war is over (if you want it). who cares if starr did some kids narration. plus, in my opinion, the messages the beatles conveyed in their songs had a much more profound effect on society than anything the stones did. "let it be", "all you need is love", "come together"- all huge messages to society. finally, you say the beatles didnt touch on sex and drugs etc, "come together, right now, over me" <---quite obvious what that suggests. and most of their latter stuff had drug referances- hell, half the staff was written because of drugs.

All that I was trying to put across is that, just because you may think that the Stones are better doesnt mean they are. Again lets look at what The Beatles have done to our society opposed to the Rolling Stones. The Beatles are one of the most influential bands in history, so I could care less about what any of you other people think about them.

Well if realism is what you're looking for, then yes, the stones win. However, I like the meaning behind the lyrics to be more subtle, at which the beatles were masters, basically sll of their lyrics were a metaphor for something else, which is something I really admire. A lot of the stones' lyrics on the other hand had more more of a hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-blunt-object kind of message. It's incredibly easy to figure out what the stones are singing about, and personally I think it's better to have more subtle lyrics like the beatles, which is why I place them above the stones in that respect, well actually, in every respect. Although, I do love the stones, their riffs and solos are mindblowing, but overall, I think the beatles had more going for them. None of us are right, because we both have very different views of what's good, so it's no wonder that you find the stones better and I prefer the beatles. As well, the beatles wrote about a lot of subjects that were far deeper than "sex and drugs", eleanar rigby, let it be, tons more were about comments on society, huge moments in their personal lives etc, the list goes on and on.

its all a matter of opinion. i personally like beatles better.

Yay LedZepStu & ledzeppelinrulz! It totaly IS a matter of opinion. Obviously, everyone is different, and we therefore see the world through a different perspective. Why should YOU tell everyone why one thing is better than another? Who are you to chose that? I'm not saying that the rolling stones are better than the beatles, or the other way around. I, having my opinion, do love the beatles much, much more but I'm not going to diss the rolling stones because of that. I also found it strange that one of your points included the stones writing about drugs, sex and rock. First of all, why should that make anyone any better? Secondly, how would you possibly explain the beatles songs such as, "Why don't we do it in the road", "Norwegian Wood", "Yesterday", "Helter Skelter", and did it ever cross your mind of what the acronym of "Lucy in the Sky with Diomonds" is? Before you have such a strong opinion on something, please don't be so ignorant and check out the facts....

Helter Skelter is ok , the rest of those songs 'in my opinion' are crap.

I have checked the facts , I like the Rolling Stones better.Thats the only fact you need to know.

Alright: good for you!

I must have misinterpreted what you were saying.

Have a *lovely* day!

:D

I love how you use all of the Beatles' pre-1966 materal in judging.

Keith and Mick the coolest guitarist and frontman ever? Hahaha, no seriously.

I love them both, but since The Who own them both this is irrelevent.

Rolling Stones Beat There A$$
 

Keith Richards is funny as f*ck in interviews, total legend.

The Beatles probably never recorded a song better than Paint It Black but eh, gimme both.

Keith Richards actually said "The Rolling Stones destroy people at an alarming rate. Something about us makes them come face-to-face with themselves, sometimes for the better, sometimes in the worst possible way."

Which eliminates him from being "cool".

geez i dunno y people are putting so much effort into this..

Beatles fans getting their knickers in a twist over the fact someone doesn`t think they`re the greatest band ever perhaps?

I agree
:dj:

i dont think they are the greatest band ever though. based on chart success i do- which isnt tooooo important. but personally i think zeppelin and pink floyd were better. just prefer the beatles to the stones- that is all.

It's not that--I do prefer the Stones--so much as it is the threadstarter choosing the dumbest reasons possible.

I was being irreverent, I didn`t ask for people to take it so seriously

Well you obviously knew you were going to tread on peoples feet.

The Rolling Stones are matierialistic overbloated wrinkly rock grampas who refuse to let go of their fleeting fame.

I personally believe that the Stones initiated the whole school of insincere rock music. They're music is totally playing on peoples emotions and on trendyness at the time.

The Beatles on the other hand CREATED the trend instead of following it.

Whatever it's all a matter of opinion and I have just as much of a right to state mine as You do yours so don't tell me that im "overreacting" or taking it too seriously. Thats a pathetic defense to a sensible offense.

You`ll notice I named this thread 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones WERE Better Than The Beatles , as opposed to 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones ARE Better Than The Beatles.

Allow me to rephrase:

The Rolling Stones were and will always be, Materialistic, Self-centred, rock-****s, who let their undeserved fame go straight to their heads and believe themselves to be semi-gods. Concieted? mais oui.

EDIT - As I said earlier this is opinion so dont get defensive, because I'm not trying to be arguementative I'm just stating my opinion as were you. I dont think you were any less harsh.

I`m not getting defensive , I think the Rolling Stones have been crap since 1975. I just think they were better than the Beatles at the time.

Stones are more badass, pure and simple.

This is extremely off topic, but notice in the picture of the Beatles that John Lennon, and Paul Mcartney are the only ones looking into the camera, and they are the only existing members..............spooky

John Lennon didn`t die?

John Lennon is dead, along with George Harrison.

Ringo Starr and Paul McCartney are still alive

The real reason why the Stones were better was because, in their prime (Beggars Banquet through It's Only Rock and Roll, I'd say) they wrote fucking great blues and country-influenced rock, while The Beatles mainly did sometimes boring, drippy "experimental", "psychadelic" stuff that can be pretty tough to sit through unless you're in the mood (which pretty much means you have to be high). Their reputation definately precedes them.

my bad.........lol

ive now seen it all. somebody who didnt know lennon was dead lol.

no ****ing way. i wouldve never guessed