Beatles Or Stones

[querelle]

Arguably two of the best rock bands evah! But which one is #1? And why do you think so? Just for the record, I vote for the Stones because they're raunchy bad boys and that's what rock n'roll is supposed to be about. Right?

Q

:shrug:

[SPKrazy]

1. As much as I love the Beatles

I voted stones

:shrug:

[VenusRising]

17. Traitor!

I don't know if I can get over this one.

:cry:

[SPKrazy]

27. It's a hard choice

and not one any American should ever have to make :cry:

I'm sorry Venus...

:hug:

:hide:

[VenusRising]

44. Just pretend you like the Beatles more

when you talk to me.

I'll get over it.

:hug:

[SPKrazy]

45. Oh I Like The Beatles More

:D

:hug:

[VenusRising]

48. That was perfect.

It was so thick I could hear the sarcasm through the internets. :rofl:

Just don't be mad if I huck a rock at you from time to time since you favor Stones.





:hide:
:rofl:

[Kajsa]

18. Me, too!

Hi Southpaw!

I love 'em both, but the Stones were
( are) the soundtrack of my life for many,
many years!

:pals:

a refrain from 'Love In Vain'

' When the traaaaaaain left the station'
' it had TWO LIGHTS on behind'
' Oh when the train left the station'
' it had TWO LIGHTS on behind'

' Oh, the blue light was my baby'
' and the red light was --my mind'

I friggin lurve those lyrics- LOL!

Mick and Keith, rock on!

[Bjornsdotter]

19. Same here n/t

[Crabby Appleton]

2. can't vote, like both

.5 vote for stones, .5 for beatles

[GoneOffShore]

3. Can't vote, like em both.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

4. Stones.

[Lautremont]

5. Steatles.

And Bones.

[Dukkha]

6. Beatles

They were the pinnacle artistic achievement in 60's polar music. Stones were little more than a rowdy bunch of bad boys ripping off R&B music. But I like them too.

[HuskerDU]

7. Stones!

They had so many great RnR songs with that hard edge that's gotta be there for me. Some of their early songs sounded tame but had that raw sleeze simmering through 'em. Great stuff. I do love the Beatles though and have since I was a child.

[AtomicKitten]

8. I thought we settled this in the 1960s.

Vote Beatles and nobody gets hurt.

[rug]

9. Dave Clark 5.

[ironflange]

24. That counts as a Beatles vote

[rug]

56. Yeah, I guess you're right.

This poll rekindles a 1964 controversy.

[Jade Fox]

68. No way.....

even if I do love your avatar, I must disagree. The DC5 had their own unique (if inferior to the Beatles) sound.

[Jade Fox]

67. After the Beatles, but before the Stones......n/t

[Mendocino]

10. I like both however...

the Stones were always one step behind the Beatles. Plus the Beatles knew when to call it quits, the Stones have stumbled on far too long.

[edbermac]

11. Beatles by a mile.

Though I love the Stones Hot Rocks compilation.

[VenusRising]

12. No contest for me. Beatles.

[Joe Fields]

13. What he said...Best band in the world, ever, bar none, period!!!

No discussion, no debate.

[Inchworm]

14. Stones! n/t

[Zodiak]

15. Beatles

better singing, better songwriting, a greater variety of tunes, MUCH better bass lines, far greater influence, and spawned a great mind for peace in our lifetimes (even though his life was cut short).

The Stones are too chaotic and lackluster for me.

But I do appreciate bad boys....just not the Stones.

[ironflange]

26. Don't forget the drummers

Ringo is one of the finest ever, Charlie is average at best.

[mitchum]

31. That's just fucking nonsense...

I concede that the Beatles achieved far more artistically than the Rolling Stones, but anyone who listens with their ears, rather than their personal prejudices, can tell that Watts is superior.
Ask every working musician who you know, which of the two is the better drummer.

[mitchum]

32. Delete; posted wrong place

[ironflange]

37. I'm not prejudiced, I like both bands

I just find that Charlie is a time-beater, and rarely does anything interesting. Just the way I see it. Not trying to cast personal aspersions, in fact, I really admire Mr Watts for two reasons: his jazz work, and the way he has stuck with his ol' lady for so many years while the rest of the band has built up such a reputation for tom-catting.

[mitchum]

39. Actually Watts has always used his jazz chops in the Rolling Stones...

honestly, go back and listen to what he's doing in the songs. It's the rhythm guitar, not Charlie, keeping time

[ironflange]

40. OK, OK already, I'll listen!

[mitchum]

41. Cool!

Sorry, I didn't mean to come off like a jerk

[ironflange]

43. Too late!

I like to think I'm open minded. Just don't get me started about Britney, Oasis, intelligent design, etc.

[Zodiak]

62. notice I did not mention drums?

Ringo was solid, but not tremendously interesting, and was far upstaged by the other three.

Watts was cool in that he never changed expression when he played. Interesting style, too.

Neither of them are Neal Peart, though.

[idgiehkt]

16. Bones

the Stones had bigger Bones.

[Broken_Hero]

20. Of the two, the Beatles hands down, nt

[Decruiter]

21. You're a sadist for posing the question, but here goes...

WILLIE DIXON
times CHUCK BERRY


equals ROCK AND ROLL

[kwassa]

22. why even ask?

if you are talking about ROCK bands ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDUPCcKE0i4

[MorningGlow]

23. Rutles

[KitchenWitch]

25. Stones for sure!

Disclaimer - I do love the Beatles. I just love the Stones more.

[no name no slogan]

28. In the words of The House of Love

THE BEATLES AND THE STONES

Look at him shouting out
Loud as thunder out at sea
He wants a bomb
So do we

A bomb from the sky
Is the perfect crime
Shoulder on shoulder and heat

The Beatles and the Stones
Sucked the marrow out of bone
Put the V in Vietnam
The Beatles and the Stones
Made it good to be alone
To be alone

Look at me, proud of being
Proud of being seventeen
Locking in the pocket a smile
Soft from the school
Cut by the rule
Oh I'm dazed and I'm dazed and I'm dazed

The Beatles and the Stones
Sucked the marrow out of bone
Put the V in Vietnam
The Beatles and the Stones
Made it good to be alone
To be alone

The Beatles and the Stones
Sucked the marrow out of bone
Put the V in Vietnam
The Beatles and the Stones
Made it good to be alone
To be alone
To be alone
To be alone
(Alone, alone, alone, alone, alone)
To be alone


Check out the video here


(I like them both for different reasons)

[Arugula Latte]

49. I was just going to post that. I love that tune ...

:thumbsup:

[no name no slogan]

55. I've been on a House of Love kick lately

The butterfly album has been in heavy rotation. Kind of funny that this thread pops up...

[RetroLounge]

57. Beat me to it...

I was just thinking of that song...

RL

[johnnie]

29. Both, but Beatles win out

[wildhorses]

30. the beatles were a force of nature

the stones are rock and roll, nothing more.

with my username how do YOU think i voted:evilgrin:

[begin_within]

33. Beatles transcended their genre. They aren't "rock songs," they are "Beatles songs."

[mitchum]

34. What is this...1966?

:)

[BrotherBuzz]

50. 1967

It was Forty year ago today, Sgt Pepper taught the band to play....

Beatles' Sgt Pepper album was released 01 June 1967. :)

[LynneSin]

35. Option #3 - none of the above

Beatles barely cracks my top 15, Stones ain't even on the list (their new stuff sucks)

Nuff said

[johnnie]

42. Yeah but...

You also like Led Zeppelin... Nuff said :P

[mitchum]

36. The Rolling Stones lyrics will resonate far longer than those of the Beatles...

anger, spite, lust, derision, etc... are far more enduring human qualities than the utopian boomer ideals encapsulated in the bulk of the Beatles'songs.
I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, but that's just the way it is

[njdemocrat106]

38. I like both equally

Is that OK? :)

[Nicole]

46. The Beatles n/t

[Lethe]

47. i like both but i'm not sure the comparison is valid

to me, the Beatles are more pop than rock in the style of the Stones. I think more accurate comparisons would be The Beatles vs. The Beach Boys and The Stones vs Led Zeppelin, etc. Or something like that....

:shrug:

[bunkerbuster1]

69. To my mind, the comparison is off because their career arcs are so different

I didn't really care all that much for the early stones, thought they were at their best from Beggar's Banquet through Exile but did some good stuff after that too.

Whereas I love everything from the Beatles, but they of course stopped recording in 1969.

[MrSlayer]

51. Stones. Tougher, sleazier and a lot more raw.

The Beatles got better after they dropped most of the bubble gum pop and found drugs but never came across as street the way the Stones did. Keith Richards alone wins this battle.

[MilesColtrane]

58. I guess you haven't read much about the Beatles early years.

The Beatles learned how to become a great band playing gigs in Germany.
They played for drunken abusive crowds 8 to 10 hours a night, 7 nights a week, for months.

These weren't lounge gigs.
They were expected to "mach shau", or rock out as hard as possible all the time.

The Hamburg dockworkers who were regulars always demanded that the band drink with them.
Under the influence of large quantities of alcohol and little, if any, sleep the lads started doing speed just to be able to play.

They also had to learn a shitload of material. This was probably one of the main reasons they became such great writers.

The Stones weren't the only ones pulling groupies, doing drugs, and getting arrested. (Paul was charged with arson and deported for setting a fire in their room.)

The whole lovable, wholesome, matching suits thing came later and was Brian Epstein's marketing idea.

[HuskerDU]

63. But the grit and hard edged RnR that they supposedly played

in Hamburg didn't transfer over to their records. They might've been the most ferocious RnR outfit going at the time, but what came out on vinyl was very tame IMO. I like the early Beatles vs the hippy Beatles, but nowhere even close to how much I like the Stones. The Stones have that grit and sleaze going for 'em even when the music was less than ferocious. The Beatles just could never ever out bad boy the bad boys of RnR- the Rolling Stones.

[MrSlayer]

64. My sentiments exactly.

Musically, the Stones were/are street, while Beatles were bubble gum and psychedelic.

[mitchum]

66. "Badass" Keef was actually a real mama's boy...

I prefer the Rolling Stones (in fact I was a bit obsessive), but I have always found it ironic that the Beatles were the ones who actually came from tough working class backgrounds, while the members of the Rolling Stones were middle class (Bill Wyman was the only one with a hardscrabble upbringing)

[taterguy]

52. FFS: Why do Beatles fans refuse to accept science? This was settled long ago

IT'S ONLY ROCK AND ROLL, AND I LIKE IT
By Crispin Sartwell

October 6, 1997

The Rolling Stones are the best band in the history of rock music. I submit that this can be proven with mathematical rigor and now propose to do so. Follow this closely.

Sartwell's First Law: The quality of a rock band is inversely proportional to its pretentiousness.

Corollary to Sartwell's First Law: The pretentiousness of a rock band can be expressed as a ratio of its artistic ambition to its artistic accomplishment. For example, on a scale of 1 to 10, the artistic ambition of the band Yes equals 9, its artistic accomplishment 1. This yields a pretentiousness ratio of 9:1, one of the very worst in rock history.

The evaluation of rock music is no longer an impressionistic expression of opinion, but rather a precise, quantitative science. Anyone who disagrees with me from now on is simply irrational.

Some quick applications: The Ramones (1:8) are better than the Talking Heads (7:7). Nirvana (3:9) is exactly as good as Pearl Jam (9:3) is bad. The worst music ever made (literally) is art rock: King Crimson (10:1), for example. Early U2 and early Springsteen, who took what were fundamentally fairly simple ditties and mounted them with an elaborateness usually reserved for Wagnerian opera, are almost unbelievably overrated.

And finally, the Rolling Stones are much better than the Beatles.

Now admittedly this Stones vs. Beatles thing is decades old. But it rages on.

Both the Stones and the Beatles started out as interpreters of rhythm and blues. They cleaned up African American music and sold it to the world, a tried and true commercial strategy for white folks throughout the century, from Benny Goodman to Elvis Presley to Vanilla Ice.

Which brings me to:

Sartwell's Second Law: The quality of a rock song varies inversely as the square of its distance from the blues. The bluesier the better.

The world's popular music is African American music because African American music is extremely intense and powerful. If you're playing music in a European tonal framework, you're not a rock band at all.

The history of rock is the continuation of the history of the blues, both in the way it is made and in the way it is received (by dancing in bars).

The two laws are connected: When was the last time you saw a pretentious blues band? Rock is a traditional, as opposed to an avant-garde, art form. The authenticity of a work of traditional art is measured by the way it venerates and explores the tradition. The authenticity of a work of avant-garde art is measured by the way it destroys or transcends the past. Avant-garde rockers have profoundly misunderstood their form.

Something awful happened to the Beatles about 30 years ago, something that happens to most young rock musicians who achieve extreme success: They mistook themselves for avant-garde artistes. They made, for example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, a truly bad album. They lost the blues and, to paraphrase Chuck Berry, started sounding like a symphony, a vapid symphony. They went baroque.

Now that was exactly what the Stones never did (though there was one scary moment: Their Satanic Majesties Request). They have remained, for much longer than anybody else, a knockdown, straight-ahead basic blues and rock band. Mick Jagger never mistook himself for Pavarotti or T.S. Eliot. Keith Richard never tried to do anything but make great little riffs.

Think about how hard this must have been: You can do anything you want, and instead of making a statement for the ages demonstrating what a profound puppy you really are, you just write another great, simple rock song: ``Beast of Burden,'' say, or ``Between a Rock and a Hard Place,'' or, from the excellent current disk, ``Flip the Switch.''

When Bach (10:10) made profound statements for the ages, they stuck. When Emerson, Lake and Palmer (10:1) made profound statements for the ages, they were dated before they were released. ``Twist and Shout'' and other early Beatles songs sound like they were recorded yesterday. But ``For the Benefit of Mr. Kite!'' sounds like the relic of an extinct, incomprehensible culture.

Everything the Stones have ever done, with the exception of some very early work recorded before they could sing and play competently, holds up beautifully: It's the rock of ages. Albums like The Rolling Stones, Now! (1964), It's Only Rock 'n Roll (1974), and Undercover (1983) sound perfectly fresh. There's a very simple reason for that: They are excellent examples of Sartwell's laws, completely unpretentious and always undergirded by the blues.

The accomplishment of the Stones never exceeds their grasp; they know exactly what they play well, and they just keep on playing it. Do that successfully for a year and, if you're lucky, you've got a good recording and a concert tour to show for it. Do it for 35 years, and you're the only rockers who ever have.

So there you have it: perfectly irrefragable proof that if you go see the Stones, you'll be seeing the greatest freaking rock band in history. Anybody got an extra ticket?

[begin_within]

53. Beatles for composing and recording - Stones for live performance

[Ishoutandscream2]

71. Bingo. Beatles made fantastic records

Stones were visually the greatest performance band ever. But no one made greater records than the Beatles.

[SoCalDem]

54. um..BOTH!

:)

[Zavulon]

59. Stones by default. I never liked the Beatles.

I always get ripped for saying this, but in my view they were a bubblegum band of modest talent that simply came along at the right time.

[geardaddy]

60. The Who. n/t

[NoGOPZone]

61. The Beatles. They knew when to quit. nt

[Tektonik]

65. Stones, easily

[meow2u3]

70. Beatles

Their songs sound different....they experimented with instruments typically found in foreign cultures--and the music is AWESOME!!