The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[anti-NAFTA]

Which is better and why?

Now, I know a lot of people here are going to say the Beatles because of John Lennon's idealism vs. the Stone's apolitical, junkie image; but let's face it: The Stones rock; the Beatles didn't. The Beatles were good at writing catchy ditties, but they never matched the sheer musicianship and songwriting talent of the Stones. The best guitar solo in a Beatles song wasn't even performed by a Beatle (it was Eric Clapton in While My Guitar Gently Weeps). The Stones on the other hand had Keith Richards and guitar god Mick Taylor on their best albums. You simply can't compare songs like Sister Morphine, Gimmie Shelter, and Wild Horses to I Am the Walrus, Octopuss's Garden, and Get Back. That would be absurd.

[mr_hat]

1. They were ying and yang. Pity the 'Stones didn't >

break up around or about "Some Girls." Pity The Beatles couldn't have continued until about that same period.

[madmom]

2. Which is better?

Both were very good,but the Stones still rock the beatles never did.

[Goldberg]

3. None of the above...

The Stones are too weird for me and the Beatles...aren't that great, in my opinion. Don't hurt me!

[Kahuna]

15. Feh!

:grr:

[bobthedrummer]

4. I think the Stones are better players and Beatles better writers.

But my vote goes to Bob Dylan topping them both.

[PragMantisT]

5. vs. THE RAMONES!!!!!!

Game Over.

Only Americans can Rock for real.

[anti-NAFTA]

6. The Clash kicked the Ramones' ass

if you want to get there. But we're talking about The Beatles and The Rolling Stones because they each had their own cult of fans that hated each other (Let It Bleed was a tongue in cheek response to Let It Be).

[bobthedrummer]

12. I never heard such a load of bullshit anti-NAFTA

I assume you're being funny here, right?
Cause the Beatles and Stones were always friends just like their fans.
Cult fans exist among groups like ISP and Marilyn Manson IMHO.

[anti-NAFTA]

18. I don't know about the bands

themselves, but as far as the fans go, there's a lot of animosity. I for one hate the Beatles.

[bobthedrummer]

21. You don't have as much life experience, perhaps?

A boomer like myself went through all that stuff long ago.
BTW, why do you hate The Beatles?
They're truly great and now standards by which others are compared.
:wtf:

[PragMantisT]

14. Okay then, the Beatles.

They framed the debate.

Sgt Pepper's is answered by Satanic Majesties.
Let it be begets Let it Bleed.

If the Beatles had lasted longer, perhaps the Stones would have had someone to reply to instead of going country or disco.

[catzies]

7. "The 'best guitar solo in a Beatles song...'"

...was indeed played by a Beatle. It's on Abbey Road in "The End."

[BlackVelvetElvis]

41. Oh yeah, that was sweet!

I also like Paul's lead guitar work on "Taxman".

[MrScorpio]

8. Led Zep kills them both. They're not funky enough

I liked a Beatles song here and there and admired R&B covers of their tunes.
After I heard Double Fantasy, I had my suspicions confirmed that the rest of the band was holding Lennon back from being his truly funky self.

The Stones, they had my head nodding and my toes a-tapping from time to time. But after Some Girls, let's face it, it's all crap.

Now every cut Zep ever cut is a classic. Deep and soulful, hard and jamming and with so much funk you could cut it with a knife.

Nuff said.

[anti-NAFTA]

10. Could we stay on topic please?

It's Stones or Beatles. Take your pick.

And Led Zeppelin is soulless radio rock. I used to like them, but I can't stand them anymore.

[camero]

9. Stones

I still enjoy listening to Jumpin Jack Flash and Gimme Shelter.

[PragMantisT]

11. Perhaps the question should be

Who was better at ripping off Chuck Berry on their early albums?

I guess the Beatles win that one since they got sued by Chuck and lost.

[Kahuna]

16. No. That is not the question. The Beatles may have ripped...

off Chuck and the Isley Brothers in the beginning. However, every album after the first one showed enormous growth and originality. Such that Chuck and the Isleys are still in awe of to this day.

[saltpoint]

13. I need my "Wild Horses" and I need my --

-- "Eleanore Rigby" both. BOTH.

Anybody tries to take 'em away from me, I open fire.

[bobthedrummer]

17. In those terms

I'll go with The Rolling Stones because of the blues factor alone.

[bobthedrummer]

19. You should do this as a poll!

eom

[anti-NAFTA]

20. Can't. I'm not a donor.

You can do that though, and I'll just delete this thread. Just make sure to include only two options, or else everyone will vote "other".

[bobthedrummer]

22. I just ran the Bob Dylan vs. The Beatles poll

sorry, no can do.

[bubblesby2002]

23. I heard a cover of "A Day In The Life|"

on CanuckAmok's radio show last night and it made me think of the excellent writing of the Beatles. Revolver is one of the best albums of all time IMO. I've never been a huge fan of the Stones - especially now - I wish they would ago away. They have some great songs: Sympathy for the Devil, Let It Bleed, Brown Sugar, but my vote goes to the Beatles.

[bobthedrummer]

25. Do you have hatred in your heart for the Stones and their fans

like anti-NAFTA suggested-or are you like me full of love for both of the best parts of these British Invaders?

:shrug:

[bubblesby2002]

30. No I don't . I love everything about most of the British Invaders

It's just that the Stones have overstayed their welcome IMHO. But that doesn't mean I didn't pay big bucks to go see them in Vancouver last year, because I did. They DO put on a great live show.

[bobthedrummer]

33. I would think most are like us

too.
Would you pay $500 for a Paul McCartney concert ticket like some people do?
:hi:
:smoke:

[bubblesby2002]

39. I don't think I would - that's a little high - but ya know I might

If I was sure he would never tour again I probably would go. I've got many Wings albums, and I get them out and play them once in a while. :smoke: me too.

[Gildor Inglorion]

28. A Suggestion for bubblesby2002...

Get the Stones' "Their Satanic Majesties Request" album and listen to it. It's superfantastic! It came out just after "Sergeant Pepper," and almost seemed (at the time) to be the Stones saying, "See, we can be psychedelic, too." Of course, all the Beatles' albums beginning with "Yesterday and Today" are holy writ.

[bubblesby2002]

42. I haven't heard that album in a looooong time.

So maybe it's about time I heard it again. Thanks for the reminder.

[DODI]

24. Beatles were listed in Guitar Player in the Top Ten guitarists

Not one Beatle -- but the whole band. My husband is standing here going nuts about this. We love both bands, but the Beatles DID rock, the Beatles were the best songwriters and everyone else has felt their influence for the last 40 years.

[Bluzmann57]

26. The Rolling Stones

And when it comes to Rock and Roll, I rarely care about the political angle. The Stones were just better Rockers who knew damn well that it all started with some black men (and women) in the southern U.S., in fact they took their name from a McKinley Morganfield (Muddy Waters) tune, "A Rolling Stone Gathers no Moss". However, imo, Led Zepplin was, is , and will always be the greatest Rock 'n Roll band this planet has ever produced.

[bobthedrummer]

29. I think the best bottom in all rock, the best of all is Bonham/Jones

but nobody beats Jimi Hendrix yet on guitar. Especially not Jimmy Page.

[Redleg]

34. Except for Moon and Entwhistle.

Just my opinion.

[bobthedrummer]

35. Or Al Jackson, Jr. and Duck Dunn from the immortal

Booker T. and The MG's!

[bubblesby2002]

44. You know......

I could listen to this kind of a discussion all day.:D

[Bluzmann57]

37. Good point

Hendrix was arguably the most influential guitarist in rock history, and probably was better than Page. But as a band, none beats Zeppelin, imo. We could discuss this all day, but the subject is Stones vs. Beatles, so we shouldn't discuss it here.

[sendero]

27. I think it is ...

... impossible to compare the two, they were apples and oranges.

The influence of the Beatles, not only on music, on music production (using the studio as an instrument) on the culture of the whole world, is inestimable. They literally changed the world.

No such claim can be made for the Stones IMHO. The Stones were clearly better musicians technically, but their songwriting pales next to Lennon/McCartney. The Stones will never write a "Yesterday" or an "Imagine" as long as they live.

As pure musicians, the Beatles were nothing special. But then there are a boatload of technically-profecient musicians who really cannot play anything of interest because they don't have that elusive passion or gift of music. Every member of the Beatles had it and it's really hard to deny that, even though only McCartney and Harrison were really accomplished at all as musicians.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Redleg]

32. Why is it always "the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones?"

How about the Who, goshdarnit?

[bobthedrummer]

36. Cream

too.

[Gildor Inglorion]

38. Or The Dave Clark Five?

A desperately under-rated group. Also the Animals. To say nothing of Gerry and the Pacemakers. ;-)

[bobthedrummer]

40. Savoy Brown

Fleetwood Mac Pink Floyd they came out of the same British blues scene at the same time too but strayed and the world's music is better for that!:bounce:

[joeybee12]

43. Didn't we have this argument/discussion a few months back?

I said back then, and I say it now, the Beatles. The Stones are just old who've been around for an eternity--influence on rock/music is minimal.

Let the flames begin!

[Dr Fate]

45. Stones: Best rock & Roll Band. Beatles: Best Band!!!

Love them both- hard to compare...