The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Sorry but The Beatles are the best...Jagger is a pussy..in my unbiased opinion LOL!

Two completely different sounds, though from the same era.

The Stones had a harder edge to their music. They were the bad boys of
rock and roll. The Beatles were the pretty boys with their infectious pop
tunes.

The Beatles evolved, however, and ventured into areas where the Stones
never went, at least not until the late 70s when they came out with "Miss
You" and crossed over into Disco...not one of my favorite Stones tunes by]
the way.

For longevity, obviously the Stones win the battle hands down. The Beatles
couldn't even make it into the 70s. Even though Let It Be was released in
1970, most of it was recorded in January 1969 with Abbey Road REALLY
being their last album.

As I have gotten older, I don't like the Beatles as much as I did as a kid,
I admit that. I have found that there are many groups who are a lot more
interesting and, for better or worse, not played to death as much. I
think the media killed a lot of the Beatles joyride for me. There are still a
few songs I can listen to, but Sergent Pepper, which used to be a great
album, has been played into oblivion. I just can't listen to it anymore.

The Stones have also had their stuff played to death...but...because
there is more of it, it's more spread out so your tolerance level is greater.

Today, neither group is at the top of my "let's listen to these songs today"
list. I can pretty much take them or leave them both as there has been
so much that has come and gone since the glory days of both these
groups.

Who do I like better?

If I'm in the mood to really rock out, then I'll listen to stuff like:

Brown Sugar
Honky Tonk Woman
Sympathy For The Devil
Gimme Shelter
Happy
Tumbling Dice
Jumpin Jack Flash

If I'm in the mood to smile from some infectious pop, I'll listen to:

Penny Lane
Hello Goodbye
Ticket To Ride
Eleanor Rigby
Please Please Me
You're Gonna Lose That Girl

For me, these days, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

A total toss up.

Best British Bands Have To Be (in order)

The Beatles
Oasis (my favourite...if you're tutting listen to live forever,slide away,masterplan, and all their b-sides..Noel Gallagher is god!
The Smiths
The Stone Roses
Rolling Stones (I suppose)

Tough call because like it was already stated, totally different sounds.
The Beatles were, well the Beatles, and they mastered the pop sound early on.
The Stones, formerly The Rolling Stones, were definitely the "harder edge" sound.
The Beatles, love songs,The Stones drugs,etc. IE, The Beatles romantic,The Stones, social commentary in rock, when before it was usually adressed in folk.
Of the two, I'll have to go with the Stones.

PS Kurt, to the poster that you said didn't mention the best invasion band..... just by his posts I'm guessing he may have heard the Beatles and The Stones, but he's not old enough to remember them.

Wow - how do you choose between legends?

The Beatles were the symbol of a movement. The stones took the movement marching in a different direction (and to the beat of a new drum), but the Beatles were a symbol of an era and those that remember what was going on socially during those times will always have a place in their hearts and memories for the Beatles that nobody else will ever touch.

On the other hand, the Stones turned out to be the endless talents and the generation after, and after have continued to rock out to them. Mick Jagger is probably the best known rockin' geizer on the planet now -- he looks like he's about to keel over, but continues to really rock out on the stage.

There are no songs on earth that will bring back the memories and the feel of the early 60's like the Beatles. It was the time the youth of the nation were deciding they had had it with blind loyalty to Governments and religions and superficial rules with no real merit or substance and started demanding more for themselves than "yes sir".

On the other hand, the Stones can still put me on my feet shaking it up. There's a very timeless quality to their music when you're driving in your car belting out "I can't get no........." with Mick on the radio.

Stones.

What has always struck me as kind of funny about the Beatles is you can follow along in their discography and can pretty much see the time when the found drugs.

they started out all fresh faced with 'help' and 'hard days night'....and the next thing ya know, its strawberry fields and lucky in the sky

He means Lucy

Beatles - both are great though.

Tough decision but I'll go with The Stones.

I like my fav Stones songs more than I like my fav Beatles songs.

TL

Kurt, how can you say that?
If this isn't a drug influenced album I don't know what is. It was the very same thing your thread is about, Beatles vs Stones, Beatles did Sgt Pepper, Stones did this.

George Harrison said of John Lennon that he was a lyrical genius. Lennon was an enormous creative force, the most powerful there has ever been in rock music and always a rebel. McCartney was musically and technically a master, wonderful at constructing melody, the best ever. They also had humour, they could laugh at themselves. something the Stones don't have.

The music was distinctive and beat was original the style was natural the attitude was more individual than the Stones who were essentially conformist.

The Stone's just imitated African-American blues music, and made it acceptable to the mainstream. Early Stones used to copy the Beatles haircuts and all. The beatles created their own sound whether in early pop or later more rock. Groups like the Mamma and pappas wouldn't have had their sound if it wasn't for the beatles.

Yes the Stones are a good middle of the road rock band , but there are many of these, but the Beatles were a musical and cultural phenomenon probably never ever to be repeated.

I still listen to the beatles and am continually surprised at the virtuosity

"OK, Kim. I stand little bit corrected. A very small percentage of the Stones music, for a very short period of their 45 year career (and still counting) was influenced by drugs.

And even then, I'd say it was still Paul and John's fault, as they both sang on that album. They probably slipeed something into the Stones' water.

Now fast-forward to 1971 and listen to "Exile on Main Street". The Beatles are now defunct, with those drug songs being the last of the Beatles legacy. "


Now that I agree with.
I'll be the first to admit I didn't "get" Exile On Main Street at first,but it turned into one of my favorite albums.

And of course you saw I chose the Stones over the Beatles in my earlier post, I just couldn't let slip that they didn't have drug influneced music, as it was a big thing when it was Sgt Pepper VS Satanics Majesty Request. Of course, the Stones being the bad boys that they were, knew that even the title was going to cause an uproar.
I was a Stones fan till Tatto You came out, after that, not so much, but the early music of both the Stones and The Beatles was awesome.
One of the best concerts I was ever at was RFK Stadium in 72 with The Stones, and Stevie Wonder opened for them.

The Beatles were revolutionary and I followed their every move from the very beginning - it was an enchanted time and they were a primary force driving it

They were like angelic wizards - I hung on to every word of every song looking for some deep philosophic message, for several years -

Eventually, they just got to be a parody of themselves - what is the saying - 'the bloom is off the rose.

The Stones were completely different and as someone said, more of an American style hard rock band. Not so revolutionary, but more comfortable and familiar.

It's Pop rock (soft rock) vs. Hard rock


So in my early daze I would say Beatles, but in the latter I say Stones.


p.s. a lot of people don't realize Mick Jagger is a very intelligent man - he has a degree in business, is quite the family man, and still looks great to me! He is a great dancer and singer.

SolarDave,
The Stones have had more than one country song
But since you brought out Henry, Her is my favorite song by him:

thanks video posters - this thread is good fodder for my bookmark/favorites

will make a concerted effort to listen to each and save today.

funny how we really seem to ignore both beatles and stones in our numerous music threads -

Pick a side? How kruel, Kurt.

The Beatles.

Beatles by a neck...

The Stones are good magic too.

Keef!

All Hail Rolling Stones for sure..
My all time fav - Angie

Hi kurt, this is 1969, they are playing live on a roof top in London. It's true, while making this album Yoko was hanging around all the time and Lennon was not communicating much with the others. It's from the Let it be album:

Beatles....

From that era I think The Who, The Yardbirds and The Kinks are infinitely better bands than the Stones OR The Beatles. Since they were around back then I'd have to include Pink Floyd as well, more for what they became than what they were.

The Yardbirds gave us not one, not two, but three guitar "gods" (Clapton, Beck and Page).

Must admit though, I do have a very, very soft spot for "Norwegian Wood", "A Day In The Life" and "Here Comes The Sun", by Liverpool's finest.

Yeah, I know, bloody hippy.

my vote goes for the Beatles! (they are timeless!)

Actually, country is opinion. Here is a country version of Honky Tonk Women, its called Honky Tonk.

Mick Jagger was from a well to do, middle class family and was an ex-grammar school boy from the comfortable Home Counties. While John Lennon was a from a tough working class background in Liverpool. Liverpool a port city is very much a city apart in the UK with it's own distinct rich culture, influenced heavily by Irish immigrants coming to work in the docks. As well as world music which arrived on the ships. During the British empire the Liverpool docks were a major interface with Africa and Asia.

Lennon also lost his mother when he was 17. Because of his tough background He was carrying a lot of anger towards society because of what he saw as the unfairness and particularly what he saw as class ridden, snobbish claustrophobic British society who attitudes he despised.

Some say he wrote just pop songs but they misunderstand that in the early days Lennon was confrontational by his tone, his bearing and his attitude, he was for real. During these early years he had the effect of an earthquake on British society.

Yes - RIP John Lennon - You were 'Edgy', thank you so much.

Kurt,
For the most part we seem to have pretty close tastes in music, but I think they Stones should be embarrassed to have put out "Miss You".
An absolutely disgrace of a song by what is normally one of the greatest rock and roll bands in the world.
the Stones are only rock and roll, but I like it!

but that song isn't.

My choice: The Beatles.
Why? Simply because I love their music.
Lennon/McCartney was a perfect team.

BTW. I don't like Stones much. Maybe Angie.....

kurt

I agree the Stones are great at what they do, but we are comparing them with the greatest band of all so the standard is high. I have quite a few Stones albums.

It's relevant in how it informs their characters and music. Jagger was quite content with the social dispensation in Britain in the early 1960's while Lennon despised it and railed against it. He had a huge social impact because he was working class and he broke through social barriers.


The Beatles had to put up with far more hassles than the stones, Beatlemania was of a different order to what the Stones had. After relentless touring in the early years they were exhausted and wanted to work on their music in the studio. They had presence though watch the video at Shea stadium in New York.

I liked the fact that The Beatles frequently alluded to the romance of locations around Liverpool they had an affinity for; Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields etc they wrote about their own lives.

The Beatles had much more of a spiritual dimension then the Stones. How many times do the Stones ever mention love? Hardly ever.

The Stones tended to copy the Beatles. Look at the cover and content of Sergent Pepper; 6 months later "Satanic majesty" comes out with virtually the same cover and a pale imitation of Pepper's musical style.

I agree solo they were disappointing, this is because they only really functioned as a group perfectly complementing each other. Yes Macca did come up with some sugary tunes but he rarely got away with it in the Beatles, Lennon wanted more; for example, when Macca showed O-bla-di Ob-bla-da to Lennon, Lennon hated it, saying: "not another one of your granny tunes!". But as a soloist McCartney could write stuff which the Beatles would have never let him get away with. Really, it was all over by 1970.

I suppose for pure hard rocking The Stones might be the best but I think The Beatles are more substantial and interesting package!

Here's an interesting video Lennon in group with Eric Clapton, Keith Richards(playing Bass!) and Mich Mitchel playing a Lennon song: "Yer Blues". Mick Jagger also makes an appearance at the beginning!




This is Lennon solo!

I think the first one with Lennon, Richards Clapton, etc,etc, is from The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus.

I am an 80's child and I think that they are both garbage. Give me some Metallica any day!

The Rollings Stones V The Rutles who is better ?

Mick Jaggar says....The Rutles!

Hi Steven,
As I'm sure you can surmise, I am one of those people that say rap is crap.
I also agree with solardave that Metallica is crap.
I think Kurt and I both have expressed our opinion,and in the big scheme of things, out of all the songs the Stones have done ,I mentioned one or two that I think is crap. Thats a pretty damn ratio I think. We didn't get into The Beatles, but there are a few songs they did that I think is crap too.
And in the big scheme of things, I'm not going to like or dislike anyone because we don't agree on the quality of a few songs.

Ringo has moxie. He doesn't have the best singing voice but he puts his heart into it.
And he aslo surrounds himself with cream of the crop musicians.
I remember when Goodnight Vienna came out and the song No no song was all over the radio. I have to admit Goodnight Vienna is my favorite Ringo album.

"Personally, I think George Harrison put out the best stuff post Beatles
days. Heck, during his time with them, he had some of their best songs
(Something, While My Guitar Gently Weeps)"

100% agree with that statement Steven...Harrison was underrated.
I also thought he was an EXCELLENT addition to the "Traveling Willbury's" project...

And for the OP...Stones.

Apparently Paul has recently said in an interview the real reason
they did not reunite during the 70s was they were all afraid they'd
screw it up. They didn't want to try again and maybe not do well,
and then also be remembered for that.

I suppose that's understandable. But it doesn't matter what anyone
else thinks. If it's true, then it is.

I think it's cool what Ringo does with his All-Star Band. Nice idea.

It was Ringo who provided a lot of their humor and personality too. From what I've seen he was always funny in the press conferences.

I love the Stones, they represent what a rock band is in the US. But I have to go with the beatles, they've had a much bigger impact on music's history & I'm not sure where we would be now, if it weren't for the beatles.

The Beatles, their music holds up better than the stones, although both are good.

Tough one, but the Beatles just edge it for me.

If I have to choose I will say

AC DC

How to decide? I grew up listening to both of them, and they are both among my top 5 bands. They both have huge libraries, full of great music. This is like asking me who I like better, my wife or mother!

I suppose I have to say ultimately The Beatles would get my vote. Mostly for their ingenuity and overall contribution to the culture. The Stones do the same great R&R all the time. The Beatles were a constantly changing and growing group.

Great thread!

Hands down, no contest...
The Beatles.
They preceded the Stones
They ranged far wider than the Stones
They influenced The Stones.
(Ace-in-the-hole) The Beatles never did Disco.

3 of The Beatles had successful solo careers. No Stone could do that.

"Revolution", "She Came In through The Bathroom Window" "Help"...

Plus several more, are better than ANY Stones tune.
The Beatles could have covered the Stones. The Stones could not cover The Beatles.

Not to say I'm not a Stones fan.

I mean... "There's so many flies on you... I just can't brush 'em off". How can you not like that?

I liked Ringo's "Stop and Smell the Roses" or something similar.

I was never a big Stones fan. They did the occasional great song, but most of their stuff was just "meh" for me. The Beatles did a lot more songs I thought were "great."

Of course, the Stones are still touring, and they do a great show - over the years, enough stuff has built up that they can play all the great songs and still do a full show.

They are my 1st and 2nd favorite bands of all time.

Rock on!
Michael

The Beatles by a long, long way.

The Stones keep playing basically the same songs over and over and make fools of themselves by touring a long way past their use by date.

Have you noticed that the older groups get, the more musicians they employ on stage?

The Stones had some really great stuff in the 60's and early 70's, but just repeated the same old stuff over and over since then.

The Beatles were fortunate in having two songwriters with quite different styles who were able to produce a wide variety of music, as distinct from the very repetitive blues/rock style of the Stones.

Has anyone seen "Across The Universe"? I came across it about 3 months ago and really enjoyed it. Their renditions of The Beatles songs I felt were done quite well...


Hey Jude


All You Need Is Love


Let It Be


Come Together (can you recognize the singer?)


I Am The Walrus (another one you should recognize)

Definitely the Beatles

Hey Kurt,sorry but it's got be The Beatles hands down!

hmm, though one, but i would say Beatles

yeah, I have to go with the Beatles also ... they are from a generation before mine but I appreciate their music and appreciate how important they are to music. I think the Beatles are the greatest ever

Well...

The Beatles precede the Stones.
Keith and Mick asked John and Paul to teach them how to write songs.
There any number of Beatles songs that are better than the best of the Stones.
The Beatles influenced every band that came after, including The Stones.
The Beatles never did Disco.

If you can play any Stones songs that even comes close to to this, I want to here it.

Or...

or...




Need I go on?

The Stones are, and always will be, rock 'n roll.
My mother liked the Beatles. 'Nuff said.
Keith "stonehead" Cosmoslad