The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles

U R A Crazy Breed

Is this a fucking joke?!!! the Stones are no where close to being on the same level as the Beatles!!

and Led Zep is 1000x better than the Stones!! they can't fuck with Zep on their best day.



maybe top 50...that's about it......but they can't even hang with PJ, never mind the Beatles!

Ledbetterman10

Beatles for me. I for one never understood how some people hold The Stones in as high as regard as The Beatles. That's not to say the Stones aren't a good band because they surly are. But creatively, they were always a day late and dollar short compared to the Beatles (See: Satanic Majesties). When looking at bands from that era just from the standpoint of creatively, innovation, and lasting influence, I'd put Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Black Sabbath, The Doors, and The Jimi Hendrix Experience ahead of the Stones. And I'd put The Beatles WAY ahead of the Stones.

Gern Blansten

two different bands...

The Beatles were an enigma....an amazingly talented trio in Paul, John and George. I love the Stones but there is no comparison.

redrock

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Beatles for me. I for one never understood how some people hold The Stones in as high as regard as The Beatles. .

For me it's not a question of how 'high' one band is compared to the other. I just preferred the Stones kind of music. It was raw and exciting. I found the Beatles a bit too 'poppy'(for lack of better word) to my taste. I supposed film like 'A Hard Days Night' which I saw when I was 8 (shows my age!) didn't do much to give me a different impression of them. And, at the same age, I discovered the Stones - I remember seeing them on TV on a show hosted by Dean Martin. No contest who I liked best.

BinauralJam

U R A Crazy Breed wrote:

Is this a fucking joke?!!! the Stones are no where close to being on the same level as the Beatles!!

and Led Zep is 1000x better than the Stones!! they can't fuck with Zep on their best day.



maybe top 50...that's about it......but they can't even hang with PJ, never mind the Beatles!

Zep suck!

Gern Blansten

redrock wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Beatles for me. I for one never understood how some people hold The Stones in as high as regard as The Beatles. .

For me it's not a question of how 'high' one band is compared to the other. I just preferred the Stones kind of music. It was raw and exciting. I found the Beatles a bit too 'poppy'(for lack of better word) to my taste. I supposed film like 'A Hard Days Night' which I saw when I was 8 (shows my age!) didn't do much to give me a different impression of them. And, at the same age, I discovered the Stones - I remember seeing them on TV on a show hosted by Dean Martin. No contest who I liked best.

it definitely depends on the time table that you are using to compare the two

The Stones didn't really kick in with their own (written by Jagger/Richards) music until 1969 through the 70's....I didn't start to appreciate either band until I was in high school...by then the STones were very popular and the Beatles had been broken up for 15 years

Grandmas Jam

The Stones are good, but The Beatles are GREAT. plus the stones dont have a bassist that plays drums better then their drummer. As a whole though, each individual Beatle minus Ringo) is a much better and more versatille musican than anyone in the Stones

U R A Crazy Breed

KO282453 wrote:

Zep suck!

i didn't know your mom's pet name was Zep! my bad dude!

BinauralJam

Grandmas Jam wrote:

The Stones are good, but The Beatles are GREAT. plus the stones dont have a bassist that plays drums better then their drummer. As a whole though, each individual Beatle minus Ringo) is a much better and more versatille musican than anyone in the Stones

You know Ringo had more number 1 hits after the beatles broke up then the other three.

BinauralJam

U R A Crazy Breed wrote:

KO282453 wrote:

Zep suck!

i didn't know your mom's pet name was Zep! my bad dude!

My mom sings better than that WOMAN Zep got singing for them. Roberta Plant, sing like Man ya Homo

Gern Blansten

KO282453 wrote:

Grandmas Jam wrote:

The Stones are good, but The Beatles are GREAT. plus the stones dont have a bassist that plays drums better then their drummer. As a whole though, each individual Beatle minus Ringo) is a much better and more versatille musican than anyone in the Stones

You know Ringo had more number 1 hits after the beatles broke up then the other three.

I'm going to ask for proof here....

BinauralJam

Ringo Starr released a greatest hits album, before any other Beatle had, at the end of 1975. Well, George Harrison had done so as well at the end of 1976, but George needed to include his Beatles non-hit singles as well to compensate for over half the album's content. Ringo had a well-merited release with his Greatest Hits, since he had more #1 hits than any other Beatle up to a point in the mid 70s somewhere. So, Blast From Your Past was released and also sold rather well. What a great success story, where the Beatle voted most likely to sell shoes had sold millions of records instead.


I'm sorry i may have miss spoke, he's had 2 number one hits and 10 top ten hits, still the most successful Solo Beatle. He also had a Great Childrens show and Partyied harder than the other three combined. = Win

BinauralJam

John had 2
Paul had 3
George had 3
Ringo had 2
Number 1's, but Ringo had the most top Ten hits.

Newch91

KO282453 wrote:

I'm sorry i may have miss spoke, he's had 2 number one hits and 10 top ten hits, still the most successful Solo Beatle. He also had a Great Childrens show and Partyied harder than the other three combined. = Win

Don't forget about Lennon's "lost weekend" when he partied with Keith Moon, Harry Nillson, and Ringo and he said he would blackout and forget about stuff that had happened at that time.

U R A Crazy Breed

KO282453 wrote:

John had 2
Paul had 3
George had 3
Ringo had 2
Number 1's, but Ringo had the most top Ten hits.

so what...are you like...the fucking Prez of the Ringo "the ass clown" Starr fan club?

everyone knows John was THE MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BinauralJam

John married this girl

Paul turn into this girl

George, stayed cool to the end.

Ringo partyied with this guy, all the damn time!!!

Gern Blansten

KO282453 wrote:

Ringo Starr released a greatest hits album, before any other Beatle had, at the end of 1975. Well, George Harrison had done so as well at the end of 1976, but George needed to include his Beatles non-hit singles as well to compensate for over half the album's content. Ringo had a well-merited release with his Greatest Hits, since he had more #1 hits than any other Beatle up to a point in the mid 70s somewhere. So, Blast From Your Past was released and also sold rather well. What a great success story, where the Beatle voted most likely to sell shoes had sold millions of records instead.


I'm sorry i may have miss spoke, he's had 2 number one hits and 10 top ten hits, still the most successful Solo Beatle. He also had a Great Childrens show and Partyied harder than the other three combined. = Win

Blast from your Past only reached #30 on the US billboard

You're way off man....

Newch91

KO282453 wrote:

John married this girl

Paul turn into this girl

George, stayed cool to the end.

Ringo partyied with this guy, all the damn time!!!

To be fair, she was Japanese.

BinauralJam

oops, wrong island.

curmudgeoness

The Who

(sorry)

mcameronrocks

The Beatles are absolutely number 1 for me. First, I love the harmony between Paul and John's voices. Second, their would be not Stones if not for the Beatles...they became "hot" before the Stones. Finally, not a big Mick Jagger fan.

redrock

Gern Blansten wrote:

it definitely depends on the time table that you are using to compare the two

I started listening to both around the same time ('64). The Beatles had only been around a couple of years or so before the Stones, I think. Both 'events' I mentioned (Beatles film and Stones on TV) were the same year, and yes, the Beatles had a major following (all those young girls screaming their heads off every time they opened their mouth or moved!) I supposed for me the Stones were a natural progression from the music my Dad was listening to - amongst others a lot of blues from the great ones. The Stones just seemed to 'slot in' better than the Beatles and appealed to me a lot more.

Ledbetterman10

redrock wrote:

Ledbetterman10 wrote:

Beatles for me. I for one never understood how some people hold The Stones in as high as regard as The Beatles. .

For me it's not a question of how 'high' one band is compared to the other. I just preferred the Stones kind of music. It was raw and exciting. I found the Beatles a bit too 'poppy'(for lack of better word) to my taste. I supposed film like 'A Hard Days Night' which I saw when I was 8 (shows my age!) didn't do much to give me a different impression of them. And, at the same age, I discovered the Stones - I remember seeing them on TV on a show hosted by Dean Martin. No contest who I liked best.

I totally hear ya. I'm not talking about preferring the Stones over the Beatles as far as personal tastes go. It just seems that from a historical standpoint taking things like influence, innovation and lasting popularity into account, a lot of critics and fans seem to rank the Stones as #2 to The Beatles but I think bands like Zeppelin and The Who made a much bigger impact.

StoneAment

KOYOURASS wrote:

Stones, but I think The Who kick both there buts.

This! Tbh, save a few select songs, I don't really The Beatles. They were definitely not a rock band either, they were mod. Undeniably mod. The Stones were pure fucking rock n roll.

When all is said and done though Pearl Jam are the greatest band in the history of the world ever.

dcfaithful

Stones without a doubt. I think they're style and gritty rock and roll caught on with me a lot better than The Beatles' style.

dcfaithful

whichwaysign wrote:

The Who, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, then Beatles in that order

This would be my order too.

The Who are just un-fucking-real.

JL19851

I am gonna say kind of tied. They are both amazing in different ways. In many ways, the Beatles perfected the early art of rock n' roll, and the Rolling Stones epitomize it.

In any event, I agree with those who proclaim The Who. The only band I've managed to play the "air" version of every instrument in the band...on almost every song. Nobody rocks as hard as the Who.

MANKIND

KOYOURASS wrote:

Stones, but i think The Who kick both there buts.

agreed

Byrnzie

The Doors, followed by The Stones.

IMO Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Exile, and Sticky Fingers top anything the Beatles ever did.

Though I do have a soft spot for the White Album.

Byrnzie

heidihi wrote:

The Stones by a mile...... been listening to the remastered Exile on Main street today.... it is simply AMAZING!!!!!

I love the extras on the remastered album, especially 'Following The River', and 'Dancing In The Light'.

Following The River
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rHdUv7qlZs