Beatles vs Stones

[SunKing]

Well - I`ve seen the Stones - I`ve seen the Gunners and George Thorogood - Lynard Skynard - Pink Floyd and Dire Straits.

Stones where the best damn performers i`ve seen regardless of the walking frames. They get my vote.

Yes I'll give you the Stones as more exciting stage performers. But anyone who saw the Beatles circa 1960 when they were drunken pill popping maniacs would tell you at their best they walked all over the Stones.

But primarily the Beatles were studio musical genius's who churned out the greatest music of the 20th century.

But still love a lot of the Stones 60's work,especially their more poppy work like Dandelion,Ruby Tuesday et al.

And as far as 60's bands go Beatles first..but then I'd probably go Kinks..Stones..Who..Floyd mainly INPO.

 

[lihei]

I once listened to a radio documentary by the promoter of both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones concerts here in Australia. This guy dealt with both in the early days.

He said it was a shear pleasure to work with the Stones because they where a professional outfit that where very concious about pleasing the Fans. He reckoned that the Beatles where more interested in Fart jokes.

WTF?!?!?

 

[GoSydneySwans]

The Stones to me stuck to a rock and roll pattern and didn't experiment anywhere near as much as the Beatles. The Beatles broke down barriers, and tried everything they could think of (music-wise and drug-wise). You could argue the Stones lasted longer, but I think it accentuates my point when you consider the Beatles were here and gone in under a decade, but still achieved so much more than any other band.

I find the fact that the Rolling Stones did that Rock and Roll Circus quite amusing, because that's all they are IMO - a Rock and Roll Circus. They're a classic rock band and everything, but not pioneers a la The Beatles, The Who, Pink Floyd, Jimi Hendrix and co.

I like some of their songs, but don't rate them anywhere near as high as the Beatles.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I love the Stones, but The Beatles. Easily. In fact easily is an understatement. Discussions like this are akin to discussions about Australian test cricket batsmen. It's not a question of who's best, it's a question of who's second best.

 

[graingerg]

I appreciate The Beatles, too many songs of theirs to mention, but one thing that has bugged me about them is that so many of their songs are just plain nonsense (Martha My Dear,Mean Mr Mustard,Octopus's Garden,Yellow Submarine). The Stones stayed more to there Blues roots & produced more revealing music IMO.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I appreciate The Beatles, too many songs of theirs to mention, but one thing that has bugged me about them is that so many of their songs are just plain nonsense (Martha My Dear,Mean Mr Mustard,Octopus's Garden,Yellow Submarine). The Stones stayed more to there Blues roots & produced more revealing music IMO.

Have you HEARD Tomorrow Never Knows?

 

[Carlos]

The Beatles music inspires me as much as any band i've ever gotten into and makes me feel better about life in general. I not only have respect, but in many ways its almost an emotional attachment. To me that is pretty much as good as it gets and is why i listen to music.

I've tried hard to get into the Stones. I own their essential work from the late 60's/early 70's and it just leaves me flat. I dont think they're particularly great players, but more than that their songs just dont do a heap for me bar for the odd one here and there.

 

[mate_67]

Beatles- there more interactive as pets.

Stones don't move! they just sit there!

 

[AndSmithMustScore]

I appreciate The Beatles, too many songs of theirs to mention, but one thing that has bugged me about them is that so many of their songs are just plain nonsense (Martha My Dear,Mean Mr Mustard,Octopus's Garden,Yellow Submarine). The Stones stayed more to there Blues roots & produced more revealing music IMO.

Indeed they did stick to their blues roots, so much so their first album contained only one very ordinary original, the rest were all covers.

 

[graingerg]

Have you HEARD Tomorrow Never Knows?

Yes i have. Im not saying all songs by The Beatles were nonsense,alot were fantastic,and their influence on rock is obvious. I just think that alot of their stuff(especially on the White album) were silly, almost like childrens songs.I think that happened in the later part of their career when Lennon And McCartney were barely speaking to each other.

 

[FitzroyRamone]

This poll is a lot like asking who would you rather have on your arm when walking around Chadstone, Megan Gale or Jennifer Hawkins.

Maybe this poll should be about their double albums, "Beatles" and "Exile on Main Street". For mine, "Exile" by an absolute mile.

 

[johnnyhoward]

Stones - more professional in every way.

When the Beatles where touring they fuc**** around and for the most part couldn`t give a shit. When the Stones came out to Aus in the early days they gave it every thing they had.

The Stones have a reputation as great live performers, even to this day they're still good (for a bunch of codgers ) The great shame is we never saw the Beatles perform live when they were making their best music - most of their live stuff is their early pop material and where they weren't in their prime. Imagine the boys performing classics like "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", "Sgt Pepper's", "Tomorrow Never Knows" live

I remember a mate used to refer to someone's pinnacle achievement as their " Sergeant Pepper" ( eg "Top of the Tots" is obviously the Wiggles' "Sergeant Pepper") but ,strangely, these days I'd prefer to listen to "Their Satanic Majesties Requests". So the Stones for me!

While it was the most influential album up until that point, it's not their best. I think Sgt Peppers is just a really catchy term, and it's stuck.

stones are better musicians with a wider range of styles. have been able to play together for 45 years while john and paul couldnt settle their egos and disbanded the group after about a decade. let's not forget that at least half of the beatles early boy-bandish stuff is rubbish.

I never really listen to any albums of theirs from 1963-64, even though they made some great songs. I Want to Hold Your Hand has some very lame lyrics, but the actual music is brilliant, for example. Everything from Rubber Soul onwards is all gold.

I love the Stones as well, mainly their 60s and 70s stuff. Since the 80s though, they've got by on reputation. They still make some good tracks now and then like Mixed Emotions - even their last album had Oh No Not You Again. The question is, do you judge a band by its prime output (the Beatles
'66-'70, Stones '68-'73), or its overall output? Don't forget the Stones' early career was just ripoffs of R&B and soul tracks (they did a good job of it some of the time though) until they hit their straps and released some absolute gold.

Maybe this poll should be about their double albums, "Beatles" and "Exile on Main Street". For mine, "Exile" by an absolute mile.

I'd say Exile as well, my favourite Stones album. A few songs on the White Album seem unfocused but "Helter Skelter" "Me and My Monkey" "Birthday" "Back in the USSR", the list goes on, are sensational. They probably could have cut it down to 20 tracks, but it's still a classic.

 

[SunKing]

Regarding there nonsense songs this is one of the things that most Beatles fans love about them and most Stones fans loathe. It's this whimsical playful child like nature of the Beatles that is one of the things that I find most appealing. It's also why I love Syd Barret era Floyd so much.

To paraphrase a quote

Elvis opened the door,the Beatles kicked the f***er off it's hinges.

The Beatles were the catalysts for a social,cultural and musical revolution.

 

[cmontommyalvin]

for me it's the stones but ofcourse they are so different it's less a question of quality than taste. i prefer their darker edge and charisma. i've never been such a fan of lennon, i think leonard cohen described him as a slogan songwriter, maybe a bit harsh but he's certainly over rated.

 

[ManWithNoName]

for me it's the stones but ofcourse they are so different it's less a question of quality than taste. i prefer their darker edge and charisma. i've never been such a fan of lennon, i think leonard cohen described him as a slogan songwriter, maybe a bit harsh but he's certainly over rated.

Anyone who thinks John Lennon is overrated is an outright, blatant fool.

 

[SunKing]

^^ Ditto

The man was an undoubted genius. Songwriter,artist,poet & author.

 

[Dagless]

Anyone who thinks John Lennon is overrated is an outright, blatant fool.

He's allowed to have an opinion lol

He was great IMO and although obviously extremely talented, I just didnt like the Beatles as much as some people did (Surprisingly really)