The Beatles or The Stones? Cast your vote
Jun 28, 2008 at 5:28 AM Post #46 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMahler /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Interesting point.....I don't dispute it if I were forced to pigeonhole the two bands.......however.... I feel The Beatles were far more capable of being Crude than the Stones were capable of being sophisticated.


Exactly! Just like the Star-Trek TOS episode "Mirror-Mirror."
 
Jun 28, 2008 at 5:59 AM Post #48 of 120
Props on that Soft Boys reference.

Awesome album, btw.

I'm gonna have to go Beatles, but I'm still working my way through the Stones. Actually, on a related note, after Sticky Fingers, Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed and Exile on Main St., where do you go?
 
Jun 28, 2008 at 6:12 AM Post #49 of 120
The Beatles. No contest. Lennon & McCartney are much better songwriters than Jagger & Richard. The Stones were even singing Beatles' songs in the beginning.
 
Jun 29, 2008 at 10:39 AM Post #50 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by Qonmus /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Actually, on a related note, after Sticky Fingers, Beggar's Banquet, Let it Bleed and Exile on Main St., where do you go?


Some many directions you could go in, but I'd say:

Some Girls
 
Jun 29, 2008 at 9:44 PM Post #52 of 120
The Beatles and the Stones are the two greatest bands in rock n roll history. I love them both but am always drawn to the blues based rock of the Stones.

In the summer of 1972, at the age of 14, I came home from the record store with Exile On Main Street tucked under my arm. I put side one on the turntable and Rocks Off came blaring out of the speakers!

At that very moment...my life changed forever.

I vote Stones!
 
Jun 29, 2008 at 10:34 PM Post #53 of 120
- Which band was able to change and explore new styles?
- Which band changed the future of music and musicians?
- You know what type of music the Stones produce now. What type of music do you think the Beatles would be playing if they were alive and playing now? Not predictable, is it.
- Which band had members who tried to affect the social/political nature of their times?

Even if you don't like their music (and which of their types of music don't you like?) there is no doubt which is/was the better band. The Beatles.

Mooch
 
Jul 1, 2008 at 12:24 AM Post #55 of 120
Was going to stay out of this but...

I have nothing against the Beatles, but as a functioning band, the Stones played circles around them. My vote goes to the group that could record and perform at any time and place, not to the cultural phenomenon that needed George Martin to hold them together and studio magic to produce some (admittedly great) work.
 
Jul 1, 2008 at 1:11 AM Post #57 of 120
I've always liked the Stones, but the Beatles have a much deeper catalog and are more sophisticated. The Beatles have better lyrics and slip a lot of interesting musical tricks into their songs. They seem simple up top, but there's much more going on. The Stones are a straightforward rock act and they do rock, but their music doesn't have the same interest for repeat listens.

Also, I unashamedly love this genre of pop. Longtime Beach Boys fan, too, ELO, the Elephant 6 collective, and lately, Jim Noir. A strong hook always pulls me in.
 
Jul 1, 2008 at 3:36 AM Post #58 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyson /img/forum/go_quote.gif
Beatles are still relevant, the Stones are not.


MP3.com: Music News - Stones top U2 for top-grossing tour It would seem some people don't realize this.
smily_headphones1.gif
 
Jul 1, 2008 at 3:49 AM Post #59 of 120
Quote:

Originally Posted by juniperlater /img/forum/go_quote.gif
I am astounded that the Stones have any votes much less 1/3. No offense.


+1

Beatles and Stones...I expected 10:1
eek.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top