The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

  • Beatles

    Votes: 11 64.7%
  • Rolling Stones

    Votes: 6 35.3%

  • Total voters
    17
The Beatles were more creative and thanks to their shorter career have relatively few 'bad' songs and no bad albums. They laid the groundwork for so many innovations in music and thanks to some deal with devil, managed to come up with some of the greatest melodies of all time. Most bands are lucky to have a handful of great tracks after a long career. I could spend a few hours listing Beatles tracks which have something exceptional about them.

Not that the Rolling Stones aren't a great band with a lot of depth. But the Beatles were something else.

That being said though i still picked a Stones song as my first dance at my wedding. The Beatles didn't even make the playlist.
 
The Beatles are more significant. More than a hundred industry-reshaping songs. In many ways, I like them more than any other band.

However the question here is who's the "better band". The Stones are. They have stand the test of time, setting the blueprint for all other bands that you can play R'n'R until you're old, until you die. 60 years of being a band non stop and counting.

The Beatles lasted 8 years in discography and did only 4 years of touring once they were on the map. They reshaped the Music business and had a number of firsts and inventions. Absolute and unprecedented phenomenon.
However not a band model. Longevity was not there, live performances were not there when they peaked artistically. From 1966 onwards they were just recording. Writing process largely became each on his own, no matter the credits.

Thus Stones for the better band. For one, they were more of a band than The Beatles.
 
I wrote this in the similar thread "Beatles or Stones?" about two years ago and I guess I feel the same even now.

That said, I still like the Kinks the most, personally, but nobody cares about that.

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.
 
The beatles, they were way more talented and a better catalouge. The stones is great as well, but not so interesting as the other band I think
 
Beatles are a far better band. But there’s a handful of Rolling Stones songs that I prefer over any song by the Beatles.
 
No interest in listing to the Beatles.

Not a huge fan of The Rolling Stones, but when they do stuff like Gimme Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil or Tumbling Dice, where they sound like a Rock n Roll band in a rehearsal room they are magic.
 
Although The Beatles are probably the most influential band of all time, I'd go with The Rolling Stones, as their rockiness is closer to my personal taste. I quite like some Beatles' songs though.
 
I’ve thought about this question quite a bit recently, spurred by a visit to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame where there’s a giant room of Beatles stuff on one side and Rolling Stones stuff on the other side. I have to say I don’t really understand why this is a popular comparison. For one thing, the timeline doesn’t really line up. When Beatlemania hit hard, the Stones weren’t even playing original music, meanwhile The Beatles were given the (at the time) major freedom to do entire albums of original material. Once the Stones started playing original songs, The Beatles were about ready to retire from touring and make more experimental studio recordings.

The Stones really hit their stride in the 70s, at which point The Beatles didn’t even exist anymore. I think it makes more sense to compare The Stones to a band like The Who, another group that started out of the British Invasion/mod scene in the 60s but really blossomed in the 70s and even managed some hits in the 80s. Both bands also stayed closer to their blues roots than The Beatles did.

Obviously the comparison has been around as long as the two bands have, so I’m probably missing something as an American not from the 60s, but in hindsight I think the legacy of the two bands becomes increasingly incomparable. Like them or not, The Beatles influence stretches beyond any other rock band. Consequently, I think Beatles vs Stones makes no sense today.
 
It's crazy that people are still discussing this after all these years, but it's a testament to how great these bands are. I like No_5's argument for it is true. However, I prefer The Beatles. They had 3,arguably 4 guys that could sing. George, John and Paul's vocals blended well together. I've actually listened to some of Bill Wyman's solo stuff and it wasn't bad at all. The guy had a decent voice, but perhaps it didn't fit well with the Stones' stuff? Could he have been their George Harrison?. Doesn't matter now:) Anyway, I like both bands but prefer The Beatles overall.
 
Well that's the thing with the Beatles compared to other rock groups - the egos were kept in check. McCartney/Lennon as the best writers and singers dominated the early years, but George was allowed a certain number of songs as well and was given more room on the albums as his writing got better. They also always had something for Ringo to sing. There was always the right amount of representation for each member IMO. I don't get the same impression with bands like the Stones where it seems like the Keith Richards/Mick Jagger show.
 
They had 3,arguably 4 guys that could sing.
4 is the right call. Ringo had a more limited range than the other three, but he knew how to use it and to great affect. He had a corner that he executed very well, somewhere between the down-on-his-luck straight man and the friendly uncle who always has time for the kids. If he did anything, it was endearing the listener to him. The others were obviously masterclass musicians, but Ringo added to the group a down to earth bit of soul.
 
Back
Top