Beatles vs Stones - With A Poll (1 Viewer)

[Dr. Octopus]

Emotional Rescue

It's a very good album - but obviously not on par with their classics. I don't hear any shouting on "She's So Cold" and only very minimally on "Shattered" and I think both are excellent rockers - but I do understand people that do not enjoy Jagger's voice.

 

[AAABatteries]

These types of discussions aren't nearly as straightforward as say, "who's better, Bill Russell or Shaq"? That's a much more fact-based discussion. I totally get why someone might say The Stones are better than the Beatles due to preferences.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I don't think you know much about the Beatles if you think they were "innocent".

I know all about all of that stuff.

There is virtually nothing truly dark -- though plenty of drug-addled weird -- in the Beatles. They sound fun and experimental and are innocent lyrically. Even the sex stuff is mostly wink wink.

They aren't singing about the devil. Or "rape, murder".

 

[Dr. Octopus]

As an interesting note to this thread - the Stones are currently working on a new album. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr will appear on it.

There was a meme going around after Charlie Watts died that said something like "The Stones don't have a bass player or drummer. The Beatles only have a bass player and a drummer"- Implying the formation of a Super Group. We're getting a mini-version of it soon.

 

[ericttspikes]

Definitely the Stones. Both made great music, but I have a weird connection with the Stones that I don't have with any other band. So many great memories of going to Stones concerts in my life and have been really, really lucky.

It all started with waiting out for tix at the record store for my first Stones show in the 80's. They did a line-up lottery in the morning and I got first in line, scored second row center and was hooked from then on.

In 1997 I was working downtown Chicago and my buddy called me at work and told me to leave ASAP and get over the Double Door, a 750 capacity club in Wicker Park. He said there was a rumor the Stones were going to play a show there in advance of their Soldier Filed tour opener. When I got there the line was long, but I got a wristband for $7! Seeing the Stones in a club was mind blowing. Since then I've traveled all over the US and Europe seeing them. Even met Martin Scorsese at the 50th anniversary shows in NJ. That was perfect. Love the fans and the scene.

 

[otb_lifer]

I don't think you know much about the Beatles if you think they were "innocent".

I know all about all of that stuff.

There is virtually nothing truly dark -- though plenty of drug-addled weird -- in the Beatles. They sound fun and experimental and are innocent lyrically. Even the sex stuff is mostly wink wink.

They aren't singing about the devil. Or "rape, murder".

backmasking down?

 

[Ilov80s]

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.

4-5 awesome tunes? Whaaat?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

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.

4-5 awesome tunes? Whaaat?

Maybe he meant per album.

 

[simey]

I don't think you know much about the Beatles if you think they were "innocent".

I know all about all of that stuff.

There is virtually nothing truly dark -- though plenty of drug-addled weird -- in the Beatles. They sound fun and experimental and are innocent lyrically. Even the sex stuff is mostly wink wink.

They aren't singing about the devil. Or "rape, murder".

I'm pretty sure Maxwell Edison was a serial killer in Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead

Let's visit a few lines from another Beatles' song.
How about Run for Your Life?

Let this be a sermon
I mean everything I've said
Baby, I'm determined
And I'd rather see you dead

You better run for your life if you can, little girl
Hide your head in the sand, little girl
Catch you with another man
That's the end, little girl

I'd rather see you dead, little girl
Than to be with another man
You better keep your head, little girl
Or you won't know where I am

Let's visit a few lines of another. How about Yer Blues.

I'm lonely, wanna die
If I ain't dead already
Girl, you know the reason why

The eagle picks my eye
The worm, he licks my bone
I feel so suicidal
Just like Dylan's Mr. Jones

I'm lonely, wanna die
If I ain't dead already (ooh)
Girl, you know the reason why

Should we visit Norwegian Wood where the narrator burns the woman's house down cause she wouldn't sleep with him?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

Should we visit Norwegian Wood where the narrator burns the woman's house down cause she wouldn't sleep with him?

Really? I never picked up on that. I thought he lit a fire in the fireplace and stayed a while.

 

[simey]

Should we visit Norwegian Wood where the narrator burns the woman's house down cause she wouldn't sleep with him?

Really? I never picked up on that. I thought he lit a fire in the fireplace and stayed a while.

The only thing he lit was her place. I reckon you shouldn't have someone sleep in the bath.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

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).

LOL, this thread inspired me to do my top 50 last night. Ended up with the Beatles at 21 and the Stones at 26. Not bad.

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

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.

Great points. I mentioned in the other thread that my 8-year-old has been on a Beatles kick lately, so I've been listening to a lot of their stuff with fresh ears. The thing that hit me that I find so amazing is that they started out in the early '60s as effectively a boy band. And then within a couple of years, they completely shifted from bubble-gum pop to the more experimental sound of Revolver and continued evolving all the way through Let It Be (or, depending on how you time things, Abbey Road). And during that period they revolutionized our conception of rock music and what could be done in a studio in all the ways @rockaction articulates, even as they featured two of the greatest songwriters of all time (and a third one who was also very good).

But even that isn't the most amazing part. They weren't just a boy band, they were probably the most popular boy band of all time, certainly in terms of cultural influence. And even as they expanded their (and our) horizons musically, it didn't come at the expense of their popularity. In fact, it enhanced it. As long as pop music has existed, there's been a perceived tension between popularity and "authenticity" (think of the apocryphal story of Dylan getting booed at Newport for going electric). The idea that the most popular band in the world could also have the best songwriters and be the most musically interesting is truly unprecedented. (You could make the argument that Taylor Swift over the past decade has come the closest, but even if that's true, it's like arguing that Larry Fitzgerald has "come the closest" to Jerry Rice's career receiving records).

If you want to argue that the Stones rocked harder, or were better live, or outpaced the Beatles on a million other different criteria, fine. But for me, the fact that the Beatles are the undisputed GOAT band means I'm going to pick them in just about any head-to-head comparison

 

[ignatiusjreilly]

I'm pretty sure Maxwell Edison was a serial killer in Maxwell's Silver Hammer.

Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Came down upon her head
Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer
Made sure that she was dead

Listened to this song recently and it really hasn't held up. Leave aside the glorification of serial killers. The narrative makes no sense. In the first verse he's a pre-med college student. In the second verse he's a schoolboy who the teacher punishes by having him write on the blackboard Bart Simpson-style. And in the final verse he somehow manages to sneak up behind the judge -- with the murder weapon -- in open court at his own trial.

Also, apparently Paul was a pain in the butt during the recording and all the other Beatles hated the song

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Should we visit Norwegian Wood where the narrator burns the woman's house down cause she wouldn't sleep with him?

Really? I never picked up on that. I thought he lit a fire in the fireplace and stayed a while.

I thought that was Hendrix. "Move over Rover and let Jimi take over".

 

[Dr. Octopus]

The only thing he lit was her place.

Was it made of Norwegian wood?

 

[DocHolliday]

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.

4-5 awesome tunes? Whaaat?

Maybe he meant per album.

Nope. There are not 4-5 awesome songs on any one Stones album. I’m a hard rock guy and should love the Stones since people say they are a guitar band while the Beatles are a vocal band. I can’t get past Jaggers voice and I don’t hear rocking guitars on most Stones songs. Their guitar work is interesting for a while but it isn’t driving enough to overcome Jagger.

 

[KarmaPolice]

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.

4-5 awesome tunes? Whaaat?

Maybe he meant per album.

Nope. There are not 4-5 awesome songs on any one Stones album. I’m a hard rock guy and should love the Stones since people say they are a guitar band while the Beatles are a vocal band. I can’t get past Jaggers voice and I don’t hear rocking guitars on most Stones songs. Their guitar work is interesting for a while but it isn’t driving enough to overcome Jagger.

Different strokes and all. There are 10 on Sticky Fingers alone, IMO. Besides some of the main hits, stuff like ***** and Sway has plenty of rockin' guitars for me.

I do agree that if you are just looking for harder guitars or framework for hard rock/metal Stones isn't it either and we would get to that more with other bands of the era like Zep, Sabbath, Thin Lizzy, Deep Purple, etc. When I think of the Stones I think more swagger and blues than hard rock.

 

[Mister CIA]

As an interesting note to this thread - the Stones are currently working on a new album. Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr will appear on it.

There was a meme going around after Charlie Watts died that said something like "The Stones don't have a bass player or drummer. The Beatles only have a bass player and a drummer"- Implying the formation of a Super Group. We're getting a mini-version of it soon.

Can't wait to hear the Paul and Mick duet, Ivory and Ivory.

 

[Joe Bryant]

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.

4-5 awesome tunes? Whaaat?

Maybe he meant per album.

Nope. There are not 4-5 awesome songs on any one Stones album. I’m a hard rock guy and should love the Stones since people say they are a guitar band while the Beatles are a vocal band. I can’t get past Jaggers voice and I don’t hear rocking guitars on most Stones songs. Their guitar work is interesting for a while but it isn’t driving enough to overcome Jagger.

Again, please let us know what you like about Doc Holliday. The liking Holliday but hating Jagger is killing me.

 

[Dwayne Hoover]

I can appreciate both bands, wouldn't say I love either of them.

However, it was an easy vote for me "definitely the stones"

 

[DocHolliday]

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.

4-5 awesome tunes? Whaaat?

Maybe he meant per album.

Nope. There are not 4-5 awesome songs on any one Stones album. I’m a hard rock guy and should love the Stones since people say they are a guitar band while the Beatles are a vocal band. I can’t get past Jaggers voice and I don’t hear rocking guitars on most Stones songs. Their guitar work is interesting for a while but it isn’t driving enough to overcome Jagger.

Again, please let us know what you like about Doc Holliday. The liking Holliday but hating Jagger is killing me.

I don’t like Jaggers voice. I love the Doc Holliday character in Tombstone.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don’t like Jaggers voice. I love the Doc Holliday character in Tombstone.

Fascinating. If Mick Jagger were a cowboy, he'd be Doc Holliday. No one else even close.

 

[pecorino]

For me, this is a no contest as the Beatles are run-away the greatest band of all time. They scratch every musical itch. Looking for dark and dirty (mentioned up thread)? Try I Want You (She's So Heavy) or Helter Skelter. Not the same depth as the Stones, of course, considering that the Beatles' run was well under one decade. All the more impressive. Their output from 1965 - 1970 (Rubber Soul through the end)--straight from the Divine.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I don’t like Jaggers voice. I love the Doc Holliday character in Tombstone.

Fascinating. If Mick Jagger were a cowboy, he'd be Doc Holliday. No one else even close.

Mick Jagger needs to sing more like Val Kilmer.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Also, apparently Paul was a pain in the butt during the recording and all the other Beatles hated the song

And how menacing can it be if it sounds like a nursery rhyme.

I get that I'm saying something subjective when I talk about which music sounds full of menace and anger and fire and pain, so mileages may vary, but hearing an argument that the Beatles somehow reflect the zeitgeist of the late 60s/early 70s -- in the same way Gimme Shelter or Sympathy for the Devil did (IMO) -- is still a surprise to me.

 

[El Floppo]

beatles catalog is obviously amazing- so many classics. more numbers on the classics side than the stones.

but I don't really want to listen to any of them any more. over them.

I do still actively listen to stones tunes and albums, which benefitted from pushing into the 70s (my favorite era of theirs) with more rocking tunes. that said- beggars banquet and sympathy for the devil are my favorite tune and album from either of them.

 

[New Binky the Doormat]

Rock and Roll Garage

@rocknrollgarag1
·
19h

57 years ago, on August 5, 1966, The Beatles released the album "Revolver".

 

[Tau837]

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).

LOL, this thread inspired me to do my top 50 last night. Ended up with the Beatles at 21 and the Stones at 26. Not bad.

This would be an interesting exercise. Stones would make my top 50, but Beatles wouldn't. I respect the Beatles' greatness, but this thread is about preference, and I prefer the Stones.

 

[skol asylum]

Wow. Alot of wrong people in this pole.

 

[El Floppo]

Wow. Alot of wrong people in this pole.

I know. Zeppelin, amirite?

 

[skol asylum]

Wow. Alot of wrong people in this pole.

I know. Zeppelin, amirite?

Well yeah, obviously.

 

[rockaction]

I know. Zeppelin, amirite?

You don't have to go-oh, oh oh oh oh

 

[Mister CIA]

Who had the better four album run?

Beggar's' Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile On Main Street -vs- Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

 

[Tau837]

Who had the better four album run?

Beggar's' Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile On Main Street -vs- Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

Pretty sure the answers to this question would exactly mirror the poll.

 

[rockaction]

Not necessarily. I think you’d have to ditch Sgt. Pepper’s and make it For Sale and I’d answer Beatles and not close. But that’s a great run of Stones albums, for sure. I think With The Beatles would merit mention, too.

 

[massraider]

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

But that wasn’t the question.

I don’t care if every pop song since 1965 is thanks to John Lennon.

I prefer the way the Stones sound.