Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Rolling Stones or The Beatles?

Chizz
Chizz Posts: 28,341
edited August 2009 in Not Sports Related
The fab-four for me
«1

Comments

  • It's 2009!

    Isn't it?
  • Chizz
    Chizz Posts: 28,341
    I'm sorry. Does brilliant music come with sell-by dates?
  • No, sorry but that was a debate in the 60's, like Blur or Oasis in the 90's.

    At the time you had to choose,

    Now we can calmly say BOTH - and I do.
  • carlsberg
    carlsberg Posts: 1,383
    stones
  • boggzy
    boggzy Posts: 3,596
    Beatles
  • Red_in_SE8
    Red_in_SE8 Posts: 5,961
    Stones
  • Stones...exile on main street...they dont come much better than that...
  • 24 Red
    24 Red Posts: 578
    When they were head-to-head in a Blur/Oasis fashion it was the Beatles, no contest. The Stones peak came when the Beatles were splitting up. Stones can't match the Fabs for impact but Beggars/Bleed/Sticky/Exiles - what a run of albums.
  • [cite]Posted By: 24 Red[/cite]When they were head-to-head in a Blur/Oasis fashion it was the Beatles, no contest. The Stones peak came when the Beatles were splitting up. Stones can't match the Fabs for impact but Beggars/Bleed/Sticky/Exiles - what a run of albums.

    I agree with this.
    Up to and including Sgt. Pepper everybody, including the Stones, followed where the Beatles lead them (often with hilarious consequences cf. "Their Satanic Majesties").
    Even "Aftermath" arguably the Stones best mid-period album, came out the same year as "Revolver".
    Of course, the Stones singles were always mustard; but it was only when they stopped mimicking the Beatles and forged their own musical identity starting with Beggars Banquet that they really came into their own.
    Also Mick adopted the personna of the character he played in "Performance" as his ongoing public image and soon "the greatest rock'n'roll band in the world" was born.
    Ultimately though, as Spiced Addick says, you gotta love them both.
  • sillav nitram
    sillav nitram Posts: 10,169
    beatles, had a far wider musical range than the stones, who i like but were perhaps a bit predictable.

  • Sponsored links:



  • Weegie Addick
    Weegie Addick Posts: 16,534
    Both.

    Beatles overall are more consistent/ every track listenable, but the Stones win on out and out classics like Paint it Black.
  • Stones have some crackers but the beatles purely for consistency. Great track after great track
  • Alex Wright
    Alex Wright Posts: 8,214
    edited August 2009
    The Who!!!!!!!!


    Whoops, off topic alert, off topic alert!
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,862
    The Stones - more rock to the Beatles pop.
  • HarryAMuse
    HarryAMuse Posts: 1,178
    The Beatles.....no contest

    Now then, John or Paul (or George or Ringo)?

    Paul for me. At the end of the day it's all about the tunes and Macca sure could write them.
  • Addickted
    Addickted Posts: 19,456
    Stones.

    Rock 'n' Roll............
  • Stones, without a shadow of a doubt

    BUT, one of my all time favourite songs is The Beatles "And your bird can sing"
  • Stig
    Stig Posts: 29,036
    ... is the wrong question. Kinks or Monkees?
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,483
    edited August 2009
    I was a child of the sixties, born in January 1948, as such I was smack bang in the middle of the whole sixties phenomina.....I will go to my grave thanking the almighty for that..........how bloody lucky can you get!
    The Beatles were undoubtedly the greatest musical influence that the world of rock or pop has ever seen...they alone were responible world wide for millions of kids to pick up a guitar and become (for a few minutes at least), budding pop/rock stars.
    It's worth remembering that The Beatles themselves, during their Cavern and Hamburg days were very very rocky and ballsy....real high energy stuff, so don't have this perception that they were entirely main stream.
    The Stones have stood the test of time and although 'never' as popular, I(and I suspect many from my generation) retain a sense of pride that they came out of the sixties and still to this day can fill major venues anywhere in the world..and long may it continue.
    The Beatles song writing was simply astounding, can there ever have been a duo (Lennon & McCartney) who were so prolific and over such a short space of time.
    They laid down the ground rules from which pop/rock bands still to this day aspire in some obscure and odd way.
    The Stones would 'never in a million years' have had the success they have had were it not for The Beatles having laid the groundwork.......and as much as I respect The Stones, it must be said that it would never have been the case the other way around.
    As I type, Magic Radio are playing "The Long and Winding Road"....now how prophetic is that...that's the magic of The Beatles for you...........god bless them!
  • bibble
    bibble Posts: 1,052
    Keef

  • Sponsored links:



  • Mortimerician
    Mortimerician Posts: 5,222
    Stones for the variety and modernity of their sound. I genuinely think they've influenced more bands today than the Beatles. Obviously two great bands, but.. Main Street, Sympathy, Paint it Black are all tunes that are both brilliant and stand the test of time. If you listen to great Beatles tracks, you can immediately tell that they belong to a bygone era, whereas I think if you heard Paint it Black for the first time, now you could be forgiven for thinking that one of today's bands had suddenly upped their game.
  • boogica
    boogica Posts: 2,321
    stones 4 me but U2 are the governers.
  • The Red Robin
    The Red Robin Posts: 26,127
    Oasis
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,483
    edited August 2009
    Some strange comments from folk who weren't there at the time(sorry if this sounds a little pompous)....had the Beatles gone on, then who knows what they might have turned out, they had the incredible ability to change their style and direction it was quite phenominal..........It's become somewhat passe amongst folk (particularly not from that era), to say they prefer The Stones...The Stones were just a side show (along with many other bands), to The Beatles..and were very much second fiddle during that era....those of you who wern't there along for the ride will find that hard to believe..........but it's very true I can assure you.
    The Stones influenced more bands?.....Don't you think The Beatles influenced The Stones somewhat........in certain aspects they most certainly did.
    Before The Beatles there wern't really any bands that rocked the world in order to 'influence' anyone.....well to speak of that is.
  • but then the Beatles were massively influenced by Buddy Holly and the Crickets
  • Add to that the Everly Bros, later Beach Boys. Beatles for me, you had to decide at school (born 1946)......at Bromley Tech Dave Jones (Bowie) and Frampton in year below me.
  • Alex Wright
    Alex Wright Posts: 8,214
    now I'm sober........

    The Beatles couldn't have written Sympathy for the Devil or Tumbling Dice, The Stones couldn't have written For No One or Elanor Rigby. Impossible to compare, only a preference. A bit like 'what's better, beer or wine?'

    Me, I prefer whisky.
  • Radzinsky
    Radzinsky Posts: 100
    i may only be 18 but there's no contest whatsoever, The Beatles were the most complete band that (so far) have ever existed and Paul McCartney surely the best singer/songwriter to have existed. I like the stones but The Beatles are just too much to compete with.
  • Senpai
    Senpai Posts: 901
    Rolling Stones.
  • SoundAsa£
    SoundAsa£ Posts: 22,483
    [cite]Posted By: WasCharleyOne[/cite]but then the Beatles were massively influenced by Buddy Holly and the Crickets

    Massively???