I have wanted to ask the Lounge this question for a wile, so: The Beatles or The Stones

[fNord]

It is an age old question, a question some think can define you as a person. Now I ask you, Lounge:

who is better........

[armyowalgreens]

1. Never been a fan of The Stones.

[MissHoneychurch]

5. Same here n/t

[taterguy]

2. The quality of a rock band is inversely proportional to its pretentiousness.

Sartwell said it.

I believe it.

That settles it.

http://www.crispinsartwell.com/stones.htm

[deucemagnet]

14. Great article.

Thanks for the link.

[old mark]

3. Led Zeppelin, Ramones.

Beatles were McCartny's odd middle class English idea of Rock n Roll, Stones are more blues and R & B than rock.
If we are considering American bands, too, then the best Rock n Roll band was the Ramones.


mark

[taterguy]

4. A great band but loses many points for forcing Willie Dixon to sue them

[old mark]

20. Not only Willie Dixon, but

Hubert Sumlin.

mark

[Javaman]

11. Is that you Marky?

I agree.

Hey ho!

[DevonRex]

12. Agreed. nt

[mitchum]

25. I have a friend who once said that the Beatles' songs constitute a narrative...

of a middlebrow English boy's life.
I think he would agree with your "Beatles were McCartney's odd middle class English idea of Rock n Roll"

And I agree with both of you

[fNord]

6. what the hell lounge?

I know this place likes to stay out of the major issues, and why not?

I mean when you are asked questions like Christian or Muslim, gay or straight, Family Guy or American Dad, Boxers or Briefs, Yankees or BoSox, Libertarians or Constitutionalists, R.C. or Tab or something as nonsensical; Its easy to simply say to yourself "Neither," and not respond.

But when asked the age old question "The Beatles or The Stones?" one must have an answer, or one is simply not human.

[TZ]

7. They are both good.

I'd have to give the Stones the nod only because I've seen them in concert. They are very very good.

[jakeXT]

8. no stoned Beatles?

[edbermac]

9. Love the Beatles, like the Stones.

Can listen to any Beatles CD, but the only Stones CD I'll always listen to is the greatest hits Hot Rocks.

[darkstar3]

10. Warning: Sacrilegious post below!

I hate the Beatles.

Yes I said it, I HATE the Beatles. Every time I'm in a restaurant or a retail shop and they come on, my teeth just clench.

Of course, if your exposure to them was anything like mine, you'd hate them too. An old college friend used to play the Rubber Soul album until I thought my ears would bleed. Then, during my first REAL job out of college, I had to create a special A/V presentation with a mostly Beatles soundtrack. You cannot fathom the depths to which my soul plummets every time I hear "Here Comes the Sun."

As for the Stones, more sacrilege. I barely know them. Of course, after my Beatles experience I've been trying to stay away 60's and 70's rock, but if given the choice between only the Stones or the Beatles, you can bet I'll pick the Stones.

[Deja Q]

16. The Stones' music was top notch. Not always the best of lyrics, but the music was far better...

Which isn't to dig at the Beatles' music -- they revolutionized the era, but some innovated and surpassed it too. And, again, some of the Beatles' lyrics are REALLY creepy if anyone really took note of the lyrics...

[arbusto_baboso]

13. The Kinks. In that era they were more original and more innovative.

And as durable as the Stones, too.

[Deja Q]

15. Sorry to read into the lyrics:

"We Can Work it Out" = sexist = the woman has to do everything the man's way or else the relationship is over
"Day Tripper" = sexist = the lyrics claim the woman teases and/or does only one night stands (Nancy Sinatra's version of the song is so much better, and more realistic given just due male stereotypes)
"Run For Your Life" = sexist and violent = lyrics claim woman is sleeping around and the singer would rather she her dead and says she ought to run (once again, Nancy Sinatra's take is better... more realistic too)


Their music was great, but some of their songs are just creepy, with their sexism or other unsavory factors.


On the plus side, the Stones are just horny freaks that can't get enough satisfaction... :shrug:

[NoGOPZone]

18. Simply horny freaks? OK, if you ignore 'Under My Thumb'

Under my thumb
Her eyes are just kept to herself
Under my thumb, well I
I can still look at someone else

It's down to me, oh that's what I said
The way she talks when she's spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She's under my thumb
Say, it's alright.



On edit: You'll notice I haven't mentioned 'Some Girls' and 'Brown Sugar yet' ;-)

[yawnmaster]

21. Exactly...I was about to reply the same. eom

[yawnmaster]

22. In addition, we can work it out is not sexist...

No gender exists in the song, except of the person singing it.
The words can be spoken to one of the same sex, different sex, a mate or a friend.
Its about two who disagree and the person speaking thinks the other is wrong.

Nor is day tripper sexist. It is about a person who wants a longer relationship but has found out the other likes short term relationships.
Explain how that is sexist.


its harder to understand the stones lyrics, but listen carefully and you'll find they are at least as sexist, probably more so.

[ZombieHorde]

17. Coil. nt

[Raffi Ella]

19. The Stones!

The Beatles have their high points but I like the dirty rock and roll bluesy rhythmic sound of the Stones way better than Beatles.

I do love the Beatles more psychedelic stuff though - Lucy in The SKy, Strawberry fields.

[smoochpooch]

23. Stones, although I like both. Many Beatles songs sound too pieced together.

Stones songs sound like the band just got in a room, jammed for a few minutes, and hit record. Plus, the Stones really enjoy playing their songs, I don't know if you can say the same thing about the Beatles.

[MrSlayer]

24. The Stones are bad boy blues rock. The Beatles were bubble gum pop.

The Beatles got cooler later but the Stones were always cool.

[mitchum]

26. The Rolling Stones were more honest about the nature of humanity...

and they rocked the fucking house.

[Maccagirl]

27. Beatles.

n/t

[lunamagica]

28. The Beatles. I wish every choice was this clear and easy n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. The Stones. The end.

[Tabasco_Dave]

30. Apples and oranges

The Beatles = more creative

The Stones = rocked harder

[enigmatic]

31. The Beatles

The Stones have been a parody/tribute band for themselves since at least Steel Wheels, and the last album of theirs that actually mattered was about 3/4th of Some Girls.

The 69-74 Mick Jones-era Stones were just about unbeatable but after Mick left the band, They weren't The Stones anymore.

The Beatles were a model of consistently A-material track even through the insanity of late Beatlemania in late 1964-early 1965 when they were literally on the road indefinitely; they packed enough classic songs in an 8 year recording career to lap everybody else multiple times.

The Beatles, no doubt.

[ghostsofgiants]

32. Velvets.

Case closed.

[fNord]

33. I waited 24 hours before announcing my vote, but The Stones, man THE STONES!

they are not my favorite band, not even in the top 10. but the choice between them and the Beatles isn't really a choice at all.


and a special thanks to the three of you that voted for The Who. :yourock: Rock the fuck on!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUbGLVvfB7Y&feature=related

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. da stones

no question

I know ... it's only rock & roll. But I like it.

:hi: