The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones
 

Let 'er rip.

Moth and I have been taking up space in the bands tournament since the first (and ever so cruel) match-up pitting arguably the two greatest rock 'n' roll bands of all time against each other. It hit me that it may be a good idea to start a thread about it. I'd like to hear some other opinions- which band do you prefer? And, more importantly, why?

Remember, let's not get nasty- there is no right or wrong answer, and people are entitled to opinions. This thread is not meant to be an arena for cruelty or anger, but instead to discuss these groups.

So without further ado:

http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/i..._beatles_l.jpg

or

http://sexualityinart.files.wordpres...-a-light-2.jpg

So as not to be only an instigator but a participant, I'll lead things off.

Now, these two bands stand as number one and two on my list, and as far as I'm concerned rock music was never more influential, revolutionary, or entertaining than these chaps made it. Of course, The Rolling Stones are alive and kicking, so they easily surpass The Beatles in sheer volume of records.

Still, I like to look at the two bands' music as a whole. To me, The Beatles have the upper hand because of the crescendo of their work, the legend of the climb. To look at the evolution from Please Please Me to Let It Be is almost dumbfounding. The first few albums were what rock and roll meant to the 50s and early sixties: simple but catchy love ballods and mop haircuts. But the literal maturity of rock music can be traced through The Beatles' catalogue like a map; their music helped shape the genre, going through pop music to heftier rock and finally to psychadelic orchestrations. It is hard to compile a "greatest hits" because each song compliments another so nicely. Albums like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and The Beatles (White Album) flow like a dream, and a piece cut out of the picture, while still great, is missing something without its origin. In words, each album is an indescribable mystery, each one a puzzle.

Now, I have an easier time listening to a Stones song out of place, which certainly is convenient, but something magical seems absent compared to the former band's legacy. Sure, albums like Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are powerhouse rock records, but to me they still stand as a compilation of great songs in a convenient package, not something elemental. In fact, the only album I find a journey to listen to is Exile on Main St.

Anyway, that's one man's opinion. Probably most of you don't give two shits, and maybe you shouldn't, because both bands are essential rock artists. but I'd be curious as to what the rest of you thought.

I enjoy The Rolling Stones songs and I wouldn't be sad if I never heard a Beatles song again. So, Stones.

Ive already went on about what i dislike about the Beatles so Ill say a few things that make the Rolling Stones rise above them. Mick Jaggers vocals rock. I cant really describe them, but they rock. Their songs have huge range. Listen to Under My thumb, then Satisfaction, completely opposite. Their stage presence is way better as well. Whilst the Beatles would just stand there and sing their songs, Mick would dress up in crazy ass suits and go nuts. The Rolling Stones ooze Rock And Roll, and their still going strong.

What you say is true, but if the Stones are diverse how can the Beatles not be, and maybe even more so? Compare songs like Helter Skelter (heavy thrash) to Let It Be (crowd-pleasing ballot).

And while I do agree that the Stones can still rock LIVE, I consider most of the albums they made after, say, 1985 rather mediocre.

i like the stones - they are fun and enjoyable to listen to but. . . let's be honest here. the beatles have changed the face of popular music in fundamental ways - they are like classical composers who pushed the envelope in ways that no one had done before. virtually every form of popular music can be traced back to the beatles - they are a whole other level.

I had never heard the song Helter Skelter before, i like it though. It has heart, the vocals are way more raw than usual. it actually sounds like rock n roll. I respect that. but i would never even consider calling it 'heavy thrash'.
The song you suggested for me to listen to the the tournament thread, I'm Only Sleeping, I hate it. slow and boring, not what i look for in R&R. It screams 'HIPPIE!' to me. Thats what most of their stuff sounds like to me. If they wrote more songs like Helter Skelter, I'd dig em.

They're both great, but I rate the Beatles number one, and the Rolling Stones number two. The difference is very small.

double post

i dont think there's any comparrison

I think the Stones have maybe better written songs...but personal pref goes to the beatles, I prefer the musical style and variation more.

I like them both, but I'm with the monkey- no other band had such an effect on EVERYTHING. First band to insist on doing their own material primarily. Every band afterwards benefited from their lead. Sgt. Pepper's- there's no denying its legacy. It blew everyone away- music fans, music critics, and most of all- MUSICIANS. Every other band after that knew they had to step up their game. From recording techniques, to lyrical content, to thematic inovations- it literally changed the way people listened to music and the way people made and recorded music. To deny its influence simply means YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

You can't compare them in terms of live performance because at the height of their abilities the Beatles quit performing live. I love the Stones. There's no arguing they can rock. In terms of songwriting though, there's just no comparison. The breadth and depth of the Lennon/McCartney cannon is untouchable- and you put Harrison in there as well, and the Beatles legacy is just untouchable.

Ultimately, it's a stupid debate. People make their choices based on what appeals to them, and that's the way it should be. They are two of the greatest bands ever. Measuring influence and legacy is possible, however. Anybody who can look impartially can see the Beatles' reach is much farther.

I like The Beatles much better but they're both fine bands. Neither is #1 in my book. The Beatles have more depth, better evolution of sound, and they experimented more in my opinion. Cocksucker Blues be damned, I take the Fab 4.

By the time The Beatles hit the shores of the good ole U.S. of A. I was a little boy of 6....but I can still remember the impact. The Ed Sullivan Show was my first encounter.......I can still remember my father talking about there hair. There is NO denying that they changed the face of Rock & Roll. And they continued to put out great music till the end and beyond with the solo efforts.

I also grew up on The Stones and love their music....but there really is no comparison....apples & oranges. Two great bands who , depending on my mood, I will toss a CD in and enjoy and reminisce about days gone by.




or something like that

the one thing is - the beatles knew when to call it quit so they disbanded while they were still great.

the stones were good - 25 years ago but they've been spinning their 'steel wheels' since that time.


better to burn out than to fade away..

AGREED! i saw the stones about five years ago and it was fun but i couldn't help but feel they were waaay past their primes (not just physically but musically and creatively). the beatles had the advantage of really going out on top. i mean, say what you want about abbey road (the last album recorded though not the last released) - it is an amazingly diverse and creative album. not a bad note to go out on.

YES! Us Brits haven't produced too many Rock Bands, but two we have are so good they divide people across the world.

Rule Britannia,
Rule, the waves,
Britons never will be slaves.

you havent been alive very long


there was a time when most of the rock bands came from the uk

I know we've made a good few, but not nearly as many as the US.

I agree with NE

The Beatles are simply awesome. The scope of thier impact on music & culture is beyond comparison. Their rapid evolution from 3-chord bar-band to complex experimental musicians is astounding.

The music of The Beatles is full of beautiful melodies, layered harmonies, odd instrumentation and a very real message about love... The Rolling Stones are fast, ugly, sloppy and all about sex & violence

so of course my love for the Stones will always be just a little stronger than The Stones... but I'll take The Clash over either of them!

Eeerrrh...... As long as you're sure, dude...

oops

I meant my love of The Stones will always be a little stronger tan my love of The Beatles:o :o :o

Beatles for me.

Never could stand The Rolling Stones.

Not thrashy, but check out Yer Blues. Better yet, listen to the White Album. It has one of the widest gamuts of music in rock history. The White Album proves that saying all Beatles songs are alike is absurd. Revolution 9 and Savoy Truffle only cement it. If Savoy Truffle sounds like Octopus' Garden, then Dylan's Blowin' in the Wind sounds like his Blind Willie Mc Tell. As a hardline Dylan fan, I assure you it does not.

the beatles set the thread in my opinion

The Stones. the beatles was the most over rated bands ever plus dont like em

very poor use of the word overrated .. just stick with your second statement - you dont like them.


if millions of people think they were the best band ever - then thats exactly how they rate.


fuck i hate that word overrated.


(i dont like it - so everyone else who does is wrong)

Excellent point.

You should make a thread about that. ;) :D

I feel exactly the same way.

I said this in the band tourney, but I'll repeat it here...

'Paint it Black' is one my favorite songs of all time, but the Stones have done a lot of stuff I don't really like. I pretty much like everything The Beatles have done, but none of it as much as Paint It Black.

Overall, I feel like The Beatles are a more consistent band, but the Stones have the best song of the two.

Just my 2 cents.

As a Beach Boys fan, I must point out to all you Beatles fans that The Fab Four were trying to make an album that sounded as good as Pet Sounds from The Beach Boys

And they did it, too!

There ya go. Something you & I completely agree on. I knew it was bound to happen sooner or later. :D

I enjoy both groups... however, the Beatles are the single most influential rock group ever!

I can go from angry to happy in just one of their songs and vice versa, who else do you know can do that???

The beatles and the stones are not realy my cup of tea but do like a couple of the stone but I will stick by my guns about the beatles they still the most overated band I now and the only thing why people like em so much is that they came out at the rite time with somesomthink new and it killed rock'n'roll off . But if they came out abit lata would they still have had the same big following now thats my point......But I still never slag people off for what music they like every one is diffrant....I like my punk and rock a billy music and other stuff mixed in .....

Hahahahahaha- that's certainly a unique claim- the Beatles killed rock n roll... LMAO.

Leave Elvis and Jonny cash alone lol( Well the did live nirvana kill Metal music off in the early 90s)

I'm.... I'm confoosed... what just happened??

I just say how overated the beatles was and How they killed the 50s off...