Beatles or Stones?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
OddEnormous

OddEnormous

I'M FLYING!! I'M FLYING!!
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
2,476
Likes
54
Points
48
I'm going Stones.

Just watched the unreleased documentary about them called "Cocksucker Blues." (6.75/10 at best)

Couple things though. There's a very good chance the Beatles actually have the better songs quantity wise, but they seem like a bunch of miserable cvnts who were so far up their own ass' it's embarrassing... Whereas I'd LOVE to hang out with the Stones.

BUT I'd say if you pick the best 15 tracks from each bands catalog... Just their 15 best tunes, the Stones wrote the better of the best.

Also, would you go Icarly or Wizards of Waverly Place?
 
Last edited:
Impossible to pick one for me. Love both bands.
 
Of the two I pick the Beatles, but love both.


If given the choice somewhere else, I'd go with The Who.


iCarly all the way.
 
Beatles. The Stones are OK, I like a lot of their music, but some if it is pretty awful and grossly sexist.

The Beatles were not the best guitarists, bassists, keyboardists, drummers in rock music. Their singing is good but others had better voices. What they had, that NO ONE else had, aside from phenomenal charisma, was an incredible variety and creativity. As soon as others started imitating them, they moved onto something new. The Beatles by 1969 were very different from the Beatles of 1963. Whereas I can listen to a newer Stones song and it sounds a lot like the Stones of 30 or 40 years ago.

Incidentally, I took a university extension course on Mozart, and the professor said that for variety and creativity, no one has matched Mozart, except the Beatles.
 
Beatles all the way. Not even close.

The Stones are the second most overrated band of all time.
 
crandc said:
The Beatles by 1969 were very different from the Beatles of 1963.
Click to expand...

Of course. The question though is what's that worth? What does that mean? Are they more varied? Possibly and probably.... But is that why you like them better? Because they sounded different from beginning to end?


crandc said:
I took a university extension course on Mozart, and the professor said that for variety and creativity, no one has matched Mozart, except the Beatles.
Click to expand...

I suppose that's really just an opinion though.

I do respect the Beatles, I just can't get over their self love.

I like the whole Rolling Stones package better.
 
Last edited:
hoojacks said:
The Stones are the second most overrated band of all time.
Click to expand...

I appreciate a person with a strong opinion (Your Beatles take). That being said, calling something" overrated" is kind of lazy. I don't even know what that means.

BTW who's the first? Dave Matthews Band?
 
OddEnormous said:
:grin:



So, you'd pick the Who over the other two?

Interesting curve ball.


That being said I can't believe you guys can't separate the original 2.

STOP SAYING BOTH EVERYONE!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


Ya. I think musically they were beyond what either of the other two bands were. Their lyrics were at least as strong as either band too. I just think it's hard to argue against Townshend, Entwistle and Moon musically, and Townshend was a great songwriter.
 
The Beach Boys over both, but I'd probably pick the Beatles of the two. Both had a lot of great music, but there are just more Beatles songs I enjoy, including at the "top end" (I like the Beatles' ten best more than the Stones' ten best).
 
Minstrel said:
The Beach Boys over both, but I'd probably pick the Beatles of the two. Both had a lot of great music, but there are just more Beatles songs I enjoy, including at the "top end" (I like the Beatles' ten best more than the Stones' ten best).
Click to expand...




I am also a big fan of the Beach Boys. They are way up there in the top few for me too.
 
So no one else is Stones then yet?

FUCK! Thought I made a good case.

Let's just say I'd rather be shooting Heroin with Keif at the Chateau Marmont than smoking a bloody hookah with ringo in India.

Fuck the Beatles :mad:
 
Mediocre Man said:
I am also a big fan of the Beach Boys. They are way up there in the top few for me too.
Click to expand...

EVERYONE STOP NAMING OTHER BANDS.

This is not a favorite band thread.

This is Beatles vs. Stones full package.
 
OddEnormous said:
Fuck the Beatles :mad:
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm cool with that sentiment. I think they were great, but all this "Beatles invented modern pop music, there would be no <fill in band/genre/society/species> without them" stuff is way overblown. They were one of the first prolific guitar pop bands, but they drew plenty of influence from earlier garage rock, Motown, etc. I think they're excellent, but there are plenty of other bands I enjoy more.
 
Some writer, I forgot who, said that in retirement homes in a few years the senior citizens will still be arguing Beatles vs. Rolling Stones.

I'm listening to Hello Goodbye as I type...
 
The Stones.. and its not really close.

I like the Beatles a lot... but I like my Rock and Roll much dirtier than that.

The Stones are the best.

"Monkey Man" is probably on my top 5 songs of all time list.
 
I gotta give Pink Floyd a shout out here too.
 
crandc said:
Beatles. The Stones are OK, I like a lot of their music, but some if it is pretty awful and grossly sexist.

The Beatles were not the best guitarists, bassists, keyboardists, drummers in rock music. Their singing is good but others had better voices. What they had, that NO ONE else had, aside from phenomenal charisma, was an incredible variety and creativity. As soon as others started imitating them, they moved onto something new. The Beatles by 1969 were very different from the Beatles of 1963. Whereas I can listen to a newer Stones song and it sounds a lot like the Stones of 30 or 40 years ago.

Incidentally, I took a university extension course on Mozart, and the professor said that for variety and creativity, no one has matched Mozart, except the Beatles.
Click to expand...

McCartney was one of the best bass players of his time, and would (if he were still young) be among the best today.
 
stones have 1 song that doesn't make me want to vomit (gimme shelter)
beatles have zero

stones by default i guess

floyd/zep >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 
100 years from now, people will still remember and play The Beatles' music. They won't remember the Stones.
 
Beatles and there is no close second.

There's a reason Beatles songs are covered by bands in every genre of music from Andy Williams to Robin Trower to Sarah Vaughn to Cheap Trick. They were written by musicians with an innate understanding of music theory who also happened to be incredibly talented and productive. So their songs "have a lot of meat on them" as one of my guitar teachers used to say. They are just screaming for someone to elaborate on them, or turn them on their ear.
 
The Beatles are so good that the oldies stations won't play their songs. But they play Rolling Stones songs. In the 60s every 10th song on the radio was a Beatles one.

The Stones are just one of about 30 supergroups or superindividual singers from the 60s. Just compare quantity of hits.

One more comment: The decade of the 60s was from about 1955-75. Music after that should not be called rock and roll. It is very different.
 
In case that wasn't clear, my vote is for the Beatles. (This could have been a poll.)
 
jlprk said:
One more comment: The decade of the 60s was from about 1955-75. Music after that should not be called rock and roll. It is very different.
Click to expand...

Musically, the decades have always seemed to fall on the 5's. 1935-1945, 1945-1955, 1955-1965, 1965-1975, 1975-1985, after that it gets pretty spotty with no real definition of quality or reigning genre for any amount of time.
 
Each of those decades got separate names until rock and roll. That stuck. Maris, you know more about music than I do. Tell me the names of each genre for those decades you listed. I'd learn something; maybe others would too.

And why do they still call many songs today rock and roll when they sound nothing like 1955-75? Maybe they supposedly share some inner structure in common with then, but I sure can't hear it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top