Jump to content

Beatles vs. Stones


Beatles Stones  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. Which is the better band



Recommended Posts

Love the both. I will lean toward the Stones though. The Beatles were a brilliant flame that burned out fast...but they were something., really something....

 

The Stones have been around forever, and are easy to take pot-shots at...but in their prime (1967-73) I think they defined modern rock-n'roll. The Doors? Please! The Stones encompass so much, and have been influential in every facet of the music business. Fashion, business, recording...and best of all, music. Saw a funny quote, sort of related somewhere...something like "Wings...the band the Beatles could have been!"


Most people like the Stones but if given a chance to see bands in their prime, they would not make most Top 10 lists.

Beatles a clear #1, and then depending on my mood it could be Kinks, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Doors, The Band, Queen, Nirvana, Bowie, Hendrix, CCR, Beach Boys, The Ramones, Santana, Uncle Tupelo, Cream, Elvis, Talking Heads, Skynard, The Clash,

As the great George Carlin once said: "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize, half the people are even stupider"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

i like the Beatles,but my god, when it comes to rock and roll, the Stones are it. i care not to read through this thread since a "majority" are absolutely wrong. and i mean that sincerely.

 

jw

 

 

100% Agree. Beatles are elevator music, Stones bad ass rock.

 

 

 

It means that while the Rolling Stones have a some great songs, the Beatles have collection of great albums all plastered with great songs on them which makes them significantly better in my mind.

 

Nah, the majority of us just read the title and answered the poll. It doesn't say which band rocks harder or is more rock and roll, it just says "Beatles vs Stones" and "Which is the better band?"

 

The message above adequately suffices for my rebuttal to the first two nonsensical replies before it. But the elevator music bit is just flat wrong.

 

 

It asked who was the better band, not who created the best rock and roll. Considering the only instrument Mick can play is his lips -- the Beatles are clearly the winner.

 

And he doesn't even do that as well as 75% of the Beatles..

 

The Who in their prime were a better Rock and Roll band than the Stones. No one is "absolutely" wrong as taste in art is universally subjective.

 

I agree with part of this.

 

 

 

The Who were overrated. Fact.

 

I agree with this.

 

If we're going by rock your breasts off rock and roll, then the Stones (I guess) were the "better" band, but I would argue that they were just the more prolific hard rock band since songs like Helter Skelter, Polythene Pam and most of the Beatles early stuff would suggest they had it in them just as much. It just wasn't their focus.

 

But even in the realm of rock your breasts off rock and roll (in the late 60's early 70's), the Stones weren't even the best at that. Led Zeppelin has them by a mile and Cream took the genre to a whole other level.

 

Don't get me wrong. I love me some stones. But let's not confuse effort with results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ob la di, ob la da. Life goes on ... brah.

 

That's the type of song I think of when I can't put The Beatles close to being as good as The Stones.

That and Walrus crap, and Yellow Submarine. And, the stuff about yellow mustard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

The message above adequately suffices for my rebuttal to the first two nonsensical replies before it. But the elevator music bit is just flat wrong.

 

 

And he doesn't even do that as well as 75% of the Beatles..

 

 

I agree with part of this.

 

 

 

I agree with this.

 

If we're going by rock your breasts off rock and roll, then the Stones (I guess) were the "better" band, but I would argue that they were just the more prolific hard rock band since songs like Helter Skelter, Polythene Pam and most of the Beatles early stuff would suggest they had it in them just as much. It just wasn't their focus.

 

But even in the realm of rock your breasts off rock and roll (in the late 60's early 70's), the Stones weren't even the best at that. Led Zeppelin has them by a mile and Cream took the genre to a whole other level.

 

Don't get me wrong. I love me some stones. But let's not confuse effort with results.

The Who overrated? Nahhh.

 

Beatles over Stones any day. Beatles could and did tons of different sounds successfully. Stones, not so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the type of song I think of when I can't put The Beatles close to being as good as The Stones. That and Walrus crap, and Yellow Submarine. And, the stuff about yellow mustard.

I kind of, in an innocent and peaceful kind of way, want to kick your ass for those remarks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My first thought was, "define band."

 

If "band" means playing live and entertaining, then it's the Stones hands down. If it means composing, arranging and creating timeless art, then the Fab Four get the nod.

 

The beauty of it all is, we can have our cake and eat it too. No need to pick sides...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...