The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[alkytrio666]

Let 'er rip.

Moth and I have been taking up space in the bands tournament since the first (and ever so cruel) match-up pitting arguably the two greatest rock 'n' roll bands of all time against each other. It hit me that it may be a good idea to start a thread about it. I'd like to hear some other opinions- which band do you prefer? And, more importantly, why?

Remember, let's not get nasty- there is no right or wrong answer, and people are entitled to opinions. This thread is not meant to be an arena for cruelty or anger, but instead to discuss these groups.

So without further ado:



or



So as not to be only an instigator but a participant, I'll lead things off.

Now, these two bands stand as number one and two on my list, and as far as I'm concerned rock music was never more influential, revolutionary, or entertaining than these chaps made it. Of course, The Rolling Stones are alive and kicking, so they easily surpass The Beatles in sheer volume of records.

Still, I like to look at the two bands' music as a whole. To me, The Beatles have the upper hand because of the crescendo of their work, the legend of the climb. To look at the evolution from Please Please Me to Let It Be is almost dumbfounding. The first few albums were what rock and roll meant to the 50s and early sixties: simple but catchy love ballods and mop haircuts. But the literal maturity of rock music can be traced through The Beatles' catalogue like a map; their music helped shape the genre, going through pop music to heftier rock and finally to psychadelic orchestrations. It is hard to compile a "greatest hits" because each song compliments another so nicely. Albums like Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and The Beatles (White Album) flow like a dream, and a piece cut out of the picture, while still great, is missing something without its origin. In words, each album is an indescribable mystery, each one a puzzle.

Now, I have an easier time listening to a Stones song out of place, which certainly is convenient, but something magical seems absent compared to the former band's legacy. Sure, albums like Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers are powerhouse rock records, but to me they still stand as a compilation of great songs in a convenient package, not something elemental. In fact, the only album I find a journey to listen to is Exile on Main St.

Anyway, that's one man's opinion. Probably most of you don't give two shits, and maybe you shouldn't, because both bands are essential rock artists. but I'd be curious as to what the rest of you thought.

[massacre man]

I enjoy The Rolling Stones songs and I wouldn't be sad if I never heard a Beatles song again. So, Stones.

[The Mothman]

Ive already went on about what i dislike about the Beatles so Ill say a few things that make the Rolling Stones rise above them. Mick Jaggers vocals rock. I cant really describe them, but they rock. Their songs have huge range. Listen to Under My thumb, then Satisfaction, completely opposite. Their stage presence is way better as well. Whilst the Beatles would just stand there and sing their songs, Mick would dress up in crazy ass suits and go nuts. The Rolling Stones ooze Rock And Roll, and their still going strong.

[alkytrio666]

What you say is true, but if the Stones are diverse how can the Beatles not be, and maybe even more so? Compare songs like Helter Skelter (heavy thrash) to Let It Be (crowd-pleasing ballot).

And while I do agree that the Stones can still rock LIVE, I consider most of the albums they made after, say, 1985 rather mediocre.

[Zero]

i like the stones - they are fun and enjoyable to listen to but. . . let's be honest here. the beatles have changed the face of popular music in fundamental ways - they are like classical composers who pushed the envelope in ways that no one had done before. virtually every form of popular music can be traced back to the beatles - they are a whole other level.

[The Mothman]

Originally Posted by alkytrio666

What you say is true, but if the Stones are diverse how can the Beatles not be, and maybe even more so? Compare songs like Helter Skelter (heavy thrash) to Let It Be (crowd-pleasing ballot).

And while I do agree that the Stones can still rock LIVE, I consider most of the albums they made after, say, 1985 rather mediocre.

I had never heard the song Helter Skelter before, i like it though. It has heart, the vocals are way more raw than usual. it actually sounds like rock n roll. I respect that. but i would never even consider calling it 'heavy thrash'.
The song you suggested for me to listen to the the tournament thread, I'm Only Sleeping, I hate it. slow and boring, not what i look for in R&R. It screams 'HIPPIE!' to me. Thats what most of their stuff sounds like to me. If they wrote more songs like Helter Skelter, I'd dig em.

[sfear]

They're both great, but I rate the Beatles number one, and the Rolling Stones number two. The difference is very small.

[The Mothman]

double post

[urgeok2]

i dont think there's any comparrison

[Phalanx]

I think the Stones have maybe better written songs...but personal pref goes to the beatles, I prefer the musical style and variation more.