The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (blues, bass, pop, psychedelic) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles
Stones 1,000,000,059 99.90%
Beatles 1,000,073 0.10%
Voters: 1001000132. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-25-2005, 01:21 PM   #51 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
antman188's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Penny Lane
Posts: 93
Default

I would have to say the Beatles. If not because of the amazing songwriting of lennon/mccartney, then because of the range of music they produced, in terms of different styles they were able to play. The Stones were awesome, of course no one denies that, but, IMO, Beatles win over them.

However, I would be very hesitant to say they are the greatest rock band of all time. Led Zeppelin and The Who are first in my mind to be contenders for that title.
__________________
Standing on a hill in my mountain of dreams,
Telling myself it’s not as hard, hard, hard as it seems.
antman188 is offline  
Old 09-25-2005, 02:07 PM   #52 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

http://www.musicbanter.com/showthread.php?t=4392

Jo is gonna kill me when she reads this
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 09-25-2005, 02:21 PM   #53 (permalink)
Your La-La-La Teacher
 
Josephine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The place I come from is full of people with cruel taste of music
Posts: 538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger
http://www.musicbanter.com/showthread.php?t=4392

Jo is gonna kill me when she reads this
The Stones were never - NEVER NEVER NEVER - better than the Beatles...

They were real Rock & Roll, dirty - compared to the Beatles - and I love their music, but the Lennon/McCartney songwriter duo can't be beaten. Never. You got this?

But your taste in music is obscure anyway...
__________________
Urban for President... eh... EUROMOD!

Vote or die!
Josephine is offline  
Old 09-25-2005, 05:27 PM   #54 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterTyler
The beatles by a long shot, the abbey road album has songs which are still musicly ahead of stuff today
thats a lie.
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline  
Old 09-25-2005, 05:33 PM   #55 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
Default

The Rolling Stones are legendary and they still keep playing. I think we can see what would have happened had the beatles stayed together.

The Rolling Stones have yet to die, their new disc opened in the top 5. And while I know you don't think its a mark of success, not just any band can charge 500 dollars and sell otu stadiums. People pay, and people go because the stones throw down live like no other band. Jack White said when he was opening for them that they were arguing on how to play satisfaction during rehersal. A band that cares about every song, no matter how many times they've played it, thats a band that plays because they love music.

The Rolling Stones are probably the greatest band of all time. They are an exact testiment to what a band is, 4 guys (occationally 5) who live to play music, and they never retire, and they never quit, and they still make songs that people love.

"If the Beatles were let it be, the stones were let it bleed."
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline  
Old 09-26-2005, 04:54 AM   #56 (permalink)
Your La-La-La Teacher
 
Josephine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The place I come from is full of people with cruel taste of music
Posts: 538
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
The Rolling Stones are legendary and they still keep playing. I think we can see what would have happened had the beatles stayed together.
Don't you think that they existed...eh... quite a long time? I mean, not long enough though, but anyway. It's not like they had one single hit or one successful album, they were legendary - just as the Stones - and they still are. Without the Beatles, everything that followed would have been different. The gift they gave to us still remains: A huge, precious amount of beautiful, incredible and unique songs.
The Stones might still exist, but hmmm... I like the Stones for what they were in the past, but they turned into something slightly ridiculous long long time ago... What about: You should stop on top of your career. That's the point when you realise that henceforth - you'll only fall down.
The Stones never seemed to realise...
__________________
Urban for President... eh... EUROMOD!

Vote or die!
Josephine is offline  
Old 09-26-2005, 05:53 AM   #57 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog
The Rolling Stones are legendary and they still keep playing. I think we can see what would have happened had the beatles stayed together.

The Rolling Stones have yet to die, their new disc opened in the top 5. And while I know you don't think its a mark of success, not just any band can charge 500 dollars and sell otu stadiums. People pay, and people go because the stones throw down live like no other band. Jack White said when he was opening for them that they were arguing on how to play satisfaction during rehersal. A band that cares about every song, no matter how many times they've played it, thats a band that plays because they love music.

The Rolling Stones are probably the greatest band of all time. They are an exact testiment to what a band is, 4 guys (occationally 5) who live to play music, and they never retire, and they never quit, and they still make songs that people love.

"If the Beatles were let it be, the stones were let it bleed."
In less than half a decade, The Beatles made Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album, Let it be and Abbey Road...Were the stones able to make that many great albums in such a short time period?, i don't think so.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:25 PM   #58 (permalink)
killedmyraindog
 
TheBig3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 11,172
Default

To both of you ill say the following: I don't make statements to have them accepted. I say things for two reasons. I either believe them, or because im sick of the prevailing opinion. This one statement happens to be both.

To Josepy - Quitting at the top of your career means you were in it for the fame. Bands that keep playing love the music. Im interested in your opinion of "A Bigger Bang" because I don't see a problem with that CD at all. Please tell me how its the stones falling. Because its no Gimmie Shelter or Tumbling Dice. I think your high regard of the beatles is the lore and the overall vibe toward them. You're told their the greatest, so you say so. If you disagree with that last sentence, then tell me why a band must quit when they stop making hit singles.

To Boo boo- Kicking out a bunch of great albums is fine, but it doens't speak to the longevity of a bands career. They (the Stones) had a pretty good run in there and I'd like to reitterate. Are still going. Are the Beatles still able to put on an amazing show in their 60's hard to say. But we know the stones can. And by the way, When McCartney played the super bowl, he only played Bass on one of the two songs he had a bass in his hand. The Stones wouldn't ever using backing tracks for instruments.

Don't get me wrong, I love the beatles, but their no rolling stones.
__________________
I've moved to a new address
TheBig3 is offline  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:31 PM   #59 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo
In less than half a decade, The Beatles made Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album, Let it be and Abbey Road...Were the stones able to make that many great albums in such a short time period?, i don't think so.
Well the Stones knocked out Let It Bleed , Beggers Banquet , Sticky Fingers & Exile in just a few years, but thats only half the story. I`d say the Stones became the success they did from being one of the best if not the best live act on the planet over the past 40 years , and with only 3 line up changes too.

I`ve always said it , The Beatles = Biggest influence on pop music
The Stones = Biggest influence on rock music
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 09-26-2005, 12:52 PM   #60 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

To Boo boo- Kicking out a bunch of great albums is fine, but it doens't speak to the longevity of a bands career. They (the Stones) had a pretty good run in there and I'd like to reitterate. Are still going. Are the Beatles still able to put on an amazing show in their 60's hard to say. But we know the stones can. And by the way, When McCartney played the super bowl, he only played Bass on one of the two songs he had a bass in his hand. The Stones wouldn't ever using backing tracks for instruments.

Don't get me wrong, I love the beatles, but their no rolling stones.
Well, longevity doesnt always make you great, it dosent make them greater anyway, at least in my opinion, i mean how long have Styx been together?, 30 years?
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Closed Thread


Similar Threads



© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.