The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (rock, single, genre, albums)

DearJenny · 12-17-2006, 10:38 PM

Beatles had better harmony and better writing imo. I've never been big on the stones. I dont like blues and they drew inspiration from it. Just wasnt working for me. Also, I like the psychedelic beatles better, like Elenor Rigby and Strawberry Fields. Their first big hits just dont do it for me.

elevator · 01-10-2007, 06:52 PM

beatles
better albums especially revolver and rubber soul

TheBig3 · 01-10-2007, 07:24 PM

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

Oh man statements like are aggrivating. How, what determines that? I don't think anything they did was "ahead" of much today. If anyone deserves this accolade its maybe Zappa (or Waits) but I really can't see anything they did that was so great. I think this is just the left over reheated star-struck hippie love. People jsut wanted to rally behind something that was unquestionable in a time when everything was chaos. I don't really think we should still be perpetuating fantasy.

Frances · 01-10-2007, 07:34 PM

Stones for me.
I do really like the Beatles, but I play the Stones a whole lot more.

Strummer521 · 01-10-2007, 08:32 PM

I've been over this argument sooo many times that I don't feel like analyzing the issue in-depth, but I have to say The Beatles by far. They were innovators advancing the level of artistry involved in rock music and taking production and songcraft to the next level.

The Stones were more bad-ass, and they borrowed very adeptly from old American idioms...but they lacked the depth of the fab four, and they sold out. They debuted a recent single's video on a soap opera for God's sake!

TheBig3 · 01-10-2007, 09:55 PM

And ringo on shinning time station isn't equatable?

Music Man · 01-11-2007, 02:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentleman Johnny

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

????!!!!

So you don't think "Yesterday" and "Helter Skelter" are musically diverse?!

"I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and "Strawberry Fields Forever"?!

"Rocky Raccoon" and "Come Together"?!

The Beatles were more diverse than the Stones could ever hope to be, and I say that as a big Stones fan myself.

littleknowitall · 01-11-2007, 02:43 AM

Beatles were fantastic and if i had to pick a band out of the two, well....i'd say i prefer the stones but i can't see how anyone could say they were more diverse than the beatles, with the limited technology they had the stereo recording they produced was abstract enough not to mention all the great songs they wrote, bands they influenced and many other things.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 01-11-2007, 02:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strummer521

they sold out. They debuted a recent single's video on a soap opera for God's sake!

The Stones have been nothing more than a money making machine since the mid 70s.

But that shouldn`t detract from what they did before that.The Beatles may have been more diverse , better songwriters (Although I disagree , Jagger & Richards are the only songwriting pair that could rival Lennon & McCartney).
But the Stones made rock n roll dangerous again , the songs were more honest & brutal they were by far the better live act.

I would take Exile On Main Street over Sgt Pepper EVERY time.

Rainard Jalen · 01-11-2007, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gentleman Johnny

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

Stones were more *diverse* than the Beatles? Pfft to you, sir.

At any rate, there's a perfect, perfect example of a post where somebody makes a statement about a band whose discography they blatantly KNOW they haven't heard even a tenth of.

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

12-17-2006, 10:38 PM	#371 (permalink)
DearJenny Raptor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Metro Detroit, MI Posts: 1,321	Beatles had better harmony and better writing imo. I've never been big on the stones. I dont like blues and they drew inspiration from it. Just wasnt working for me. Also, I like the psychedelic beatles better, like Elenor Rigby and Strawberry Fields. Their first big hits just dont do it for me. __________________ So here's to living life miserable. And here's to all the lonely stories that I've told. Maybe drinking wine will validate my sorrow. Every man needs a muse and mine could be the bottle.

01-10-2007, 09:55 PM	#376 (permalink)
TheBig3 killedmyraindog Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Boston, Massachusetts Posts: 11,172	And ringo on shinning time station isn't equatable? __________________ I've moved to a new address

01-10-2007, 06:52 PM	#372 (permalink)
elevator Groupie Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Princeton, NJ Posts: 21	beatles better albums especially revolver and rubber soul

01-10-2007, 08:32 PM	#375 (permalink)
Strummer521 Pepper Emergency! Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 493	I've been over this argument sooo many times that I don't feel like analyzing the issue in-depth, but I have to say The Beatles by far. They were innovators advancing the level of artistry involved in rock music and taking production and songcraft to the next level. The Stones were more bad-ass, and they borrowed very adeptly from old American idioms...but they lacked the depth of the fab four, and they sold out. They debuted a recent single's video on a soap opera for God's sake!

01-11-2007, 02:43 AM	#378 (permalink)
littleknowitall Pow! Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,671	Beatles were fantastic and if i had to pick a band out of the two, well....i'd say i prefer the stones but i can't see how anyone could say they were more diverse than the beatles, with the limited technology they had the stereo recording they produced was abstract enough not to mention all the great songs they wrote, bands they influenced and many other things.