Beatles or Stones?

Beatles or Stones?

  • Beatles

    Votes: 10 52.6%
  • Stones

    Votes: 9 47.4%

  • Total voters
    19

______no5

The Angel Of The Odd
Perun said:
Albie said:
The Who - sorry. Easy one - Stones.
Before starting digging Beatles I was saying excactly the same reponse : Stones
the funny is that I hadn't dig Stones either, but you know, it's more RNR attitude, more accepted from the hard rockers blah blah blah

Today having a deep knowledge of both I JUST CAN'T DECEIDE : technically (regarding music only) Beatles are a million miles away
but I have to recognize that Stones lasted during time without really change (yet they made some experimentations from time to time, like in the albums exile on main st, or black n blue)

I could speak during hours for those two, but I haven't much time right now

my vote goes to Beatles just to make it a bit equal  :p
 

Deano

Ancient Mariner
I voted for the Stones. I don't LOVE either band but I never really cared for the Beatles at all.
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
____no5 said:
Today having a deep knowledge of both I JUST CAN'T DECEIDE : technically (regarding music only) Beatles are a million miles away
but I have to recognize that Stones lasted during time without really change (yet they made some experimentations from time to time, like in the albums exile on main st, or black n blue)
This shit is almost worthy of thousand_suns.

The Beatles were not "a million miles away" from the Stones as musicians. The two bands played very different music. Both were extremely good at the style they played. Both bands played many songs that the other bands would have been unable to play well, but that's because the Beatles studied pop music while the Stones studied blues. Don't overlook the subtleties in Keith Richard's guitar work or Charlie Watts' drumming.

And the Stones played "without really change" (sic) ??? Bullshit. They were constantly changing. Just because they kept most of their music within a blues-inspired format doesn't mean they weren't experimenting constantly.

If you really knew either band a quarter as well as you claim, you'd never say such obviously stupid things.


My temptation would be to vote for the Stones, but it occurs to me that the Stones have the advantage of a long career. If the Beatles had stayed together just as long, we'd have a more valid comparison. I'd vote for a "both" option if it were there*, but I can't choose between the two.

*Yes, I know I'm a mod, I know I could add that option, but I'm not going to mess with Perun's poll. Not right now, anyway. :bigsmile:
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
It doesn't help ... I like both the Beatles' and the Stones' versions of "I Wanna Be Your Man", the only direct point of comparison in 1965. :p
 

Perun

Dominus et deus
Staff member
Mate, back in '65, there was no "I like both". It was either Beatles or Stones- or bust.

Plus, the Stones' version of "I Wanna Be Your Man" is infinitely better.[hr][/hr]Since this is showing some potential of becoming a decent discussion, perhaps I should explain my opinion.
This thread originated in a thought I had when I was doing the dishes while listening to a playlist made up of (some of) my favourite Stones songs. I remembered how my parents told me about that old fight back in the sixties. My mum was a Beatles fan, and I don't think there is any record she loves so heartily as Revolver. According to her, the week she had borrowed that from her friend was the happiest week of her youth.
My dad, on the other hand, was a Stones fan. He went to the legendary Stones gig in Berlin in 1965 where the venue was torn apart by the crowd. He said he never got into the Beatles until the 70's.
In this process of thoughts, I asked myself which would have been my band had I been around back then. I imagined being 18 in 1966, in this island of freedom that sucked up anything that western pop culture offered. The western world was in the hand of that pop culture phenomenon known as "Beatlemania" (interestingly, even my Firefox spellcheck knows this word!) and the Stones had the guts to rebel against this rebellion. I felt that kind of sounded like me.
These thoughts aside, the Beatles will always have a special place in my heart for being the first pop/rock band I ever listened to. The first cassette I ever bought was "Rock And Roll Music Volume 1" at the tender age of 9. But truth be told, I think musically, the Stones were always much more sophisticated, innovative, and, let's say it, better than the Beatles. Moreover, the Stones were/are also the better band for not letting their success and egos rise to their heads to the point that it destroys them. They always managed to divert their ego clashes to their musical creativity, hence giving us some of the best rock music ever. As for the Beatles... well, we know what happened.
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
Perun said:
the Stones were/are also the better band for not letting their success and egos rise to their heads to the point that it destroys them. They always managed to divert their ego clashes to their musical creativity, hence giving us some of the best rock music ever. As for the Beatles... well, we know what happened.
You're right, they just don't know when to quit, even after they've become irrelevant. :p
 

Perun

Dominus et deus
Staff member
I assume you have neither heard their latest album nor been on one of their recent live shows ;)
 

Onhell

Infinite Dreamer
you assume correctly :D I'm just keeping this thread where it belongs. AMONGST THE MADNESS!!!! AAAAAHHHHH SPARTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
 

SinisterMinisterX

Illuminatus
Staff member
OK, I made a decision ... and voted Beatles. I realized that my earlier statement was the key to the answer...

SinisterMinisterX said:
If the Beatles had stayed together just as long, we'd have a more valid comparison.
In other words, as things stand right now, it's a tie. But it took the Stones 25 albums over 42 years to achieve this tie, while the Beatles only needed 11 albums over 7 years.

Or: the Beatles broke up in April 1970. The Stones have had over 38 years to surpass the Beatles' legacy. And all they've been able to do is reach a tie.

What if my "if" in the quote above had been true? Let's just imagine (pun intended) that the Beatles had had one more decade of making albums together, until Lennon was murdered. The mind boggles at what they might have accomplished. And with another decade, they'd clearly have left the Stones in the dust.

Evidence? That's hard to come by for a hypothetical situation. But let's consider Top 40 singles by Stones vs. the ex-Beatles from April 10, 1970 (the day the Beatles officially disbanded) to December 8, 1980 (the day Lennon was killed):

Rolling Stones: 14 top 40 singles
John Lennon: 7
Paul McCartney: 29 (includes Wings) (or 3 without Wings)
George Harrison: 12
Ringo Starr: 11

Even discounting Wings singles, that's 33 for the ex-Beatles - over twice what the Stones got in the same time period.

Source: The Billboard Book of Top 40 Hits by Joel Whitburn, 8th Edition. Whitburn is the official historian of Billboard magazine, and the Billboard Hot 100 (which is the source chart for this book) is generally considered to be the chart of record for singles in the US.

If the Beatles had continued, this discussion wouldn't even be happening. Every other band, including the Stones, would be an also-ran.
 

Wästed The Great

Minister Of Chicks, Metal&Beer; Cool & Froody Dude
Staff member
I dig them both.  However, my vote comes down to my library: I own a bunch of Beatles stuff, and I don't have any Stones stuff (shame on me, I know).
 
This is pure madness!  I have almost, everything ever recorded by The stones.  My first guitar book (pre-eighties) was The Rolling Stones Complete.  On the other hand, the Beatles were phenomenal.  Some of their songs are just unbelievable!  I listened to the Beatles (Mom's 45's) first.  Then discovered an LP of her's called Out of Our Heads.  At that point, I traded the Beatles for The Stones.
 

JudasMyGuide

Ever the Southern Gentleman
Sorry for bumping an old thread, but I was thinking about this very thing just today and I came across this thread, so I feel like I should contribute ... 12 years later, heh heh.

Anyway, while I appreciate and proclaim the Beatles as the No. 1 band ever (and objectively speaking, they and Dylan made the music since what it is), on a personal level of enjoyment I actually realised I prefer the Stones. It was not immediately obvious and it's still very close... but I realised that all those overplayed songs (and both bands have those) make all the difference to me. You see, even the overplayed songs by the Stones are much more palatable to me, even after a hundred of listens or so. Might be 'cause the RS are more about the goove, "base" principle and therefore their songs invite you to jam, to dance, to improvise. At least they're much more welcoming in that regard than the respective Beatles songs. Those are like the ultimate ivory tower - they are immaculate, awesome, thrilling... but you can't quite... "use" them.

Also the Stones are much more of a "band" to me than Beatles. Maybe it has something to do with the aforementioned sentiment regarding their songs and approach, but I find them much more personally enjoyable and they're also much more of a live band to me. I loved seeing them in concert, whereas with the Beatles it would be mostly about the fact it's "the Beatles" not about their performance being particularly enjoyable, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, once again, sorry for the bump, but I just had to.
 

MrKnickerbocker

clap hands
I spent a summer listening to the entire Beatles discography at the request of a couple good friends who are diehard fans and my opinion is:
- 20-25% of their material is absolutely genius
- 25-30% of their material is fine and listenable
- 50% of their material is nonsense

I have no real opinion on the Stones.
 
Top