What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Beatles vs Stones - With A Poll (1 Viewer)

Which do you prefer?

  • Total voters
    151
Definitely the Stones, but honestly that's probably just a function of my age. The Beatles broke up right around the time that I was born, while the Stones were still making music when I was in grad school. So the Stones were just more accessible. Maybe I'd feel differently if these two groups had had the opposite trajectories.
 
Beatles.
IvanKaramazov said:
Definitely the Stones, but honestly that's probably just a function of my age. The Beatles broke up right around the time that I was born, while the Stones were still making music when I was in grad school. So the Stones were just more accessible. Maybe I'd feel differently if these two groups had had the opposite trajectories.
Click to expand...

Kinda the opposite for me. I feel like I’ve been bludgeoned to death by the Stones everyday for 46 years.

Beatles songs make me feel better.

Chose Beatles
 
This shouldn’t be close. The Stones are a great band but are way overrated. They have 4-5 awesome tunes and they come across as cool dudes but Jagger’s voice is annoying.
 
Joe Bryant said:
@ChiefD - you really don't like either one? Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Because I'm just not a fan.

To me the Beatles are what they are - THE pop band that started it all for all pop bands moving forward. And that's fine. And I can appreciate their place in music history and how much people love them. But I listen to one or two Beatles sounds and I quickly change the channel because a large part of them are just dumb simple songs. They do have a few moments of magic but overall just not a fan.

As for the Stones, they are certainly an iconic band as well. But for whatever reason their music never resonated with me. One thing I can say for them is they are showmen and know how to put on a rock concert. And there is something to be said for that. But once again I'm not seeking out their music.

Neither band is on any of my playlists or any mix tapes I ever made or whatever. Just not for me.
 
Always been more of a Beatle fan, never really got into the Stones although I do like some of their songs now.

Spent the 90-91 high school year alternating between the Beatles and Depeche Mode. Odd mix of music there....
 
DocHolliday said:
This shouldn’t be close. The Stones are a great band but are way overrated. They have 4-5 awesome tunes and they come across as cool dudes but Jagger’s voice is annoying.
Click to expand...

This is why I love these threads. I would have put an account with a screen name of Doc Holiday as 99% picking the Rolling Stones.

What do you like about Doc Holliday?
 
I grew up a Stones' fan in a house full of Beatles' fans. My very first ever album I bought with my own money was one of those "5-LP Rolling Stones Greatest Hits" albums that was advertised on TV. It was the gritty, bluesy sound and the rebel Rock n' Roll attitude that made me a fan of them over the Beatles. I idolized Mick when I was a youngster, then deep-dove into the tortured genius of Brian Jones, graduated to appreciating the understated cool that Keif brought to the group, to full maturity and realizing that Charlie was the coolest cat of all of them.

Until about 7 years ago, my answer would have been "Definitely the Stones". Actually, it was the famous @krista4 thread that changed my mind. And when she did a redux of her famous thread, I participated a lot in it, and went into a full deep dive of all things Beatles. I have no idea how to read music or how to play any instruments. So, I am a bit of an uneducated neanderthal when it comes to music appreciation threads. But, that thread, along with the Peter Jackson "Get Back" documentary really opened my eyes to how insanely musically talented the Beatles were.

I still voted "love them both, don't make me choose" because the Stones music means a lot to me, personally. But, the Beatles music does, too. And, hands down, the Beatles were the most talented, creative, innovative, world-shaping force in music for generations.

Next thread topic: Who is your favorite Beatle and why?
 
I voted both...yes I am a fence rider! It really depends on the mood I am in. To me The Rolling Stones just rock a bit harder and The Beatles are a little more chill. Yes I acknowledge that is not an absolute, just an overall vibe I get from them.
 
For me comes down to these masterpieces:

Beggars Banquet
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main Street
Let It Bleed

vs.

Sgt. Peppers
Abbey Road
Magical Mystery Tour
Rubber Soul

It's a tie.

I understand the significance of the rest of their respective libraries, but doesnt' do much for me aside from a few songs here and there.
 
Klimtology said:
⚡DEADHEAD⚡ said:
For me comes down to these masterpieces:

Beggars Banquet
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main Street
Let It Bleed

vs.

Sgt. Peppers
Abbey Road
Magical Mystery Tour
Rubber Soul

It's a tie.

I understand the significance of the rest of their respective libraries, but doesnt' do much for me aside from a few songs here and there.
Click to expand...
No Revolver?

:shock:
Click to expand...
Team Stones will throw in Some Girls to counterpunch. Although Revolver should just replace MMT.
 
My mom loved the Beatles so I grew up listening to them on the record player. Then I was a teenager and rebelled of course but chose Zeppelin over the Stones. I do like the Stones and listen to them a decent amount. But I listen to the Beatles more and like them a little bit better.
 
Klimtology said:
⚡DEADHEAD⚡ said:
For me comes down to these masterpieces:

Beggars Banquet
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main Street
Let It Bleed

vs.

Sgt. Peppers
Abbey Road
Magical Mystery Tour
Rubber Soul

It's a tie.

I understand the significance of the rest of their respective libraries, but doesnt' do much for me aside from a few songs here and there.
Click to expand...
No Revolver?

:shock:
Click to expand...
I'm more miss than hit on pre Revolver Beatles, but that run from then through Abbey Rd may never be rivaled again.
 
Klimtology said:
⚡DEADHEAD⚡ said:
For me comes down to these masterpieces:

Beggars Banquet
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main Street
Let It Bleed

vs.

Sgt. Peppers
Abbey Road
Magical Mystery Tour
Rubber Soul

It's a tie.

I understand the significance of the rest of their respective libraries, but doesnt' do much for me aside from a few songs here and there.
Click to expand...
No Revolver?

:shock:
Click to expand...
That's fair, but not for me. I tried to keep it 4 to 4 too.
 
I’m surprised I picked the Stones. Most of my life I would have said I favored the Beatles. I just really have grown to dislike those early Beatles hits. Stuff like “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “She Loves You” have aged so poorly (in my opinion, of course). I still love a lot of their later stuff though.
 
dont get me wrong i love the beatles too but brohans its the effen stones man i mean come on take that to the bank
 
The Beatles by a comfortable margin. If I had to take the time, I could do a top 100 favorite bands/artists lists, and my guess is the Beatles would be top 25-30, while the Rolling Stones would be in the bottom half (probably closer to the 76-100 range).
 
I respect and enjoy the Stones - maybe even revere.

they can't hold a candle to the impact that the Beatles had on the

* culture
* what "rock" music meant or could include

I don't really get "mad" but when i hear/see hipsters and now even younger people not appreciating what impact these guys have had on their lives that they don't realize ...I guess I do get pretty perturbed

in 65 years of living, I have not seen ANYTHING CLOSE to the impact on culture or music that the Beatles had ...NOT CLOSE

the Stones should have their own category ...because they are so above others, but they pale beside the Beatles
 
I saw no need to be redundant and comment the same way in two threads, so I'll change it up just a bit and say why I picked The Beatles.

When it comes to live music and popularity, nobody compares to The Beatles. What they were able to do live and on the charts is unparalleled.

When it comes to songwriting, nobody has the diversity that The Beatles have. Everything from something like a love song like "Hold Me Tight" to complex classical arrangements like in "A Day In Life," The Beatles had it.

The cultural impact Binky points out can't be denied. What started as a deluge with Elvis became a downright avalanche of epic proportions with The Beatles. Especially w/r/t teenage girls, fandom, and a little uncomfortable biology along the way.

When it comes to recorded music, I think what they did sonically with music and recording far outpaced the Stones. I'm talking the techincal aspects of it. From a brief snippet by Listmania:

" 6. Studio Techniques

This item could almost be a separate list in and of itself. The Beatles (and their recording engineers) either pioneered or popularized Artificial Double Tracking (ADT), back masking, tuned feedback, spliced audio loops, distortion, equalization, stereo effects, multi-tracking (overdubbing), compression, phase shifting, and innovative “microphoning.” Although the Beatles are not credited with the invention of most of these studio tricks, they were responsible for directly inspiring countless musical acts that were desperate to copy their unique sounds."

Just unreal and so influential. This little comment, by the way, is inspired by krista4's Beatles threads and the amount of work and care that went into them. And a shout out to Doc. Oc. and his Stones countdown, which was also tons of work, well thought-out, and featured some of my favorite people on the board who are now unfortunately no longer with us (MoCS, wikkid). All top notch stuff.

But I had to pick the Beatles.
 
rockaction said:
I saw no need to be redundant and comment the same way in two threads, so I'll change it up just a bit and say why I picked The Beatles.

When it comes to live music and popularity, nobody compares to The Beatles. What they were able to do live and on the charts is unparalleled.

When it comes to songwriting, nobody has the diversity that The Beatles have. Everything from something like a love song like "Hold Me Tight" to complex classical arrangements like in "A Day In Life," The Beatles had it.

The cultural impact Binky points out can't be denied. What started as a deluge with Elvis became a downright avalanche of epic proportions with The Beatles. Especially w/r/t teenage girls, fandom, and a little uncomfortable biology along the way.

When it comes to recorded music, I think what they did sonically with music and recording far outpaced the Stones. I'm talking the techincal aspects of it. From a brief snippet by Listmania:

" 6. Studio Techniques

This item could almost be a separate list in and of itself. The Beatles (and their recording engineers) either pioneered or popularized Artificial Double Tracking (ADT), back masking, tuned feedback, spliced audio loops, distortion, equalization, stereo effects, multi-tracking (overdubbing), compression, phase shifting, and innovative “microphoning.” Although the Beatles are not credited with the invention of most of these studio tricks, they were responsible for directly inspiring countless musical acts that were desperate to copy their unique sounds."

Just unreal and so influential. This little comment, by the way, is inspired by krista4's Beatles threads and the amount of work and care that went into them. And a shout out to Doc. Oc. and his Stones countdown, which was also tons of work, well thought-out, and featured some of my favorite people on the board who are now unfortunately no longer with us (MoCS, wikkid). All top notch stuff.

But I had to pick the Beatles.
Click to expand...

dunno if i've ever seen the case for the Fabs articulated any better - kudos to you, goodt sir, you nailed this jello to the wall with aplomb.

best aspect of it is that it simply points out the elevation of the Beatles, without slagging the Stones - who, by the way, are a very worthy and prolific number two in the exercise of ranking the classic rock bands/acts (imo) - they are the Gehrig to the Fabs Ruth - theirs is definitely no disgrace, and the highs they achieved are absolutely dizzying.

rockaction said:
And a shout out to Doc. Oc. and his Stones countdown, which was also tons of work, well thought-out, and featured some of my favorite people on the board who are now unfortunately no longer with us (MoCS, wikkid). All top notch stuff.
Click to expand...

amen to that.

Doc's passion and adulation really shined out - some of the other countdowns i see on this board seem a bit clinical & rote - alotta number crunching and the like ... stats. alotta stats. meh. i guess if that floats one, then one simply floats 'em.

Doc's were more convivial, if not "familiar" - ya know?

Dr. Octopus said:
rockaction said:
MoCS, wikkid
Click to expand...
Only me and @otb_lifer are left from the Four Musketeers (as coined by MoCS).
Click to expand...

the pleasure of that finest of company were all mine, i assure you.

great thread, greater times ✌️
 
Was thinking about this again...

The Beatles are like the start of the 60s -- innocent, experimental, fun. Perfectly in tune, literally, with the baby boomers coming of age and casting what came before aside.

But as 1968 rolled around and the 60s turned into the 70s, the whole thing got darker and wilder. Vietnam, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Manson, etc. I'm sure Hunter Thompson has an amazing quote for all this. Joan Didion wrote an essay about it wrt to Manson.

Anyhow, the Beatles were done by then. Their era was the one that was gone. Some of Lennon's stuff made the leap, and a few songs by George too. But The Beatles, as the Beatles, were done either way.

But the Stones were on their home turf starting in 1968: Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street. There's not much music that captures the time as well as Sympathy for the Devil or, especially, Gimme Shelter. And the rawness, jangle, and edginess of it generally was just... aligned. Maybe as much as any band has ever been aligned.

Then by the mid-late 70s their day was done too.

I'm sure this isn't an original thought, but I hadn't really looked at it like this before. The two bands looked contemporaneous, but they weren't, really. Who they were was defined by eras so different they could have been decades apart.
 
Juxtatarot said:
I’m surprised I picked the Stones. Most of my life I would have said I favored the Beatles. I just really have grown to dislike those early Beatles hits. Stuff like “I Want to Hold Your Hand” and “She Loves You” have aged so poorly (in my opinion, of course). I still love a lot of their later stuff though.
Click to expand...

I was going to comment on how I like listening to the Beatles love songs because it lets me listen to love songs without feeling like I’m listening to a love song. So many of their songs make me think about my wife - don’t care if it makes me a big sap.
 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
The Beatles are like the start of the 60s -- innocent, experimental, fun
Click to expand...
I don't think you know much about the Beatles if you think they were "innocent". Those dues doped and screwed their way across continents when the Rolling Stones couldn't get out of London.
 
Uruk-Hai said:
Dr. Octopus said:
Uruk-Hai said:
I don't think you know much about the Beatles if you think they were "innocent".
Click to expand...
That was the image that they were portrayed as though.
Click to expand...
It was. It wasn't true, though. We're not in 1964 anymore.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about their "sound", I think we can still call it innocent - but yes, the Stones were portrayed as the "bad boys" while the Beatles were "good boys", and in reality the Beatles were just as sleezy and rough as the Stones.
 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
But as 1968 rolled around and the 60s turned into the 70s, the whole thing got darker and wilder. Vietnam, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Manson, etc. I'm sure Hunter Thompson has an amazing quote for all this. Joan Didion wrote an essay about it wrt to Manson.

Anyhow, the Beatles were done by then. Their era was the one that was gone. Some of Lennon's stuff made the leap, and a few songs by George too. But The Beatles, as the Beatles, were done either way.
Click to expand...
The Beatles were still a band during Vietnam, Bobby Kennedy, MLK, Manson, etc. As a matter of fact, Charles Manson was infatuated with the White Album. From 68 to 70, The Beatles did the White Album, Yellow Submarine, Abbey Road and Let It Be.

Strange you would leave out Paul McCartney when talking about post-Beatles work. Not even including his solo work, Wings was one of the biggest bands of the 70s. They were actually the biggest selling pop band of the 1970s with five consecutive #1 albums and 27 US Top 40 hits.
 
Dr. Octopus said:
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
Then by the mid-late 70s their day was done too.
Click to expand...
I understand you're more talking about eras but the Stones were still on their game in the mid to late 70s:

It's Only Rock and Roll (1974)
Black and Blue (1976)
Some Girls (1978)
Emotional Rescue (1980)
Click to expand...
I think the Stones hit a low around the Emotional Rescue period as Mick just seemed to be screaming out many of the songs. She's So Cold and Shattered (Some Girls) are prime examples and made me dislike the Stones for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Joe Bryant
A Thought On News - Making Every Problem Your Problem
3 4 5
Replies
211
Views
4K
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Do you tip the shuttle bus driver? - No assist with luggage
Replies
13
Views
992
jm192
jm192
Joe Bryant
  • Poll
Do you tip the free shuttle bus driver - Assists with luggage
Replies
26
Views
999
jm192
jm192

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top