Klimtology
Footballguy
Which do you prefer?
I'd have to go with the Rolling Stones although I do love Revolver.
And you?
I'd have to go with the Rolling Stones although I do love Revolver.
And you?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Beatles vs. Stones (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Klimtology
- Start date
Klimtology
Footballguy
To me the Beatles are much more Pop and the Stones are much more Rock n Roll.
jmo
jmo
AAABatteries
Footballguy
Beatles > LZ > Stones
otb_lifer
Footballguy
General Malaise
Footballguy
They're both good. Really good.
What's the need that everybody has trying to elevate great talents over other great talents? The NBA thread is full of inane blather trying to determine a hierarchy of players. THEY'RE ALL ****ING GOOD.
What's the need that everybody has trying to elevate great talents over other great talents? The NBA thread is full of inane blather trying to determine a hierarchy of players. THEY'RE ALL ****ING GOOD.
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
They both suck. I prefer Mongolian folk metal.
otb_lifer
Footballguy
Attila There Was You ....
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Ooh, Mongolian bbq.
I was going to post some days I like sushi, some days I like Korean BBQ, just depends on what I'm in the mood for in the moment.
The vs part odd. Why not both? Life would be dull eating the same thing every day (oops, sorry, wrong thread.)
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
I could never get into the Beatles when I was young. In high school, it seemed like there was a one-to-one correspondence between "Beatles fan" and "theater kid." I wasn't in the latter crowd, so I was never in the former.
The Stones are great through. I don't even consider myself a fan, and I could easily construct a 25-song playlist for myself with minimal Googling.
Edit: Probably a related point, but the classic rock stations that I used to listen to (all in the midwest) had the Stones on heavy rotation and barely played anything by the Beatles. I'm sure that had a lot to do with why my tastes developed the way they did. I remember doing a thread on this topic before and being surprised that so many other people grew up with the Beatles being played on the radio -- I get the impression that this was sort of a regional thing.
The Stones are great through. I don't even consider myself a fan, and I could easily construct a 25-song playlist for myself with minimal Googling.
Edit: Probably a related point, but the classic rock stations that I used to listen to (all in the midwest) had the Stones on heavy rotation and barely played anything by the Beatles. I'm sure that had a lot to do with why my tastes developed the way they did. I remember doing a thread on this topic before and being surprised that so many other people grew up with the Beatles being played on the radio -- I get the impression that this was sort of a regional thing.
Klimtology
Footballguy
Drunken knight
Footballguy
Beatles were more impactful.
I prefer music from the stones
I prefer music from the stones
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Mick, Keith, Paul, Ringo. Worlds oldest supergroup?
DocHolliday
Footballguy
The Beatles are not my favorite band but they are up on the list. They are the greatest band though. Their great songs number in the dozens. The Stones have some good songs but are pretty overrated. Good band but Jaggers voice is annoying after 2 minutes.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I prefer the Beatles but I think I’m more open to listening to The Stones now because they have a lot more music I’m less familiar with. I had every Beatles CD as a kid and listened to them all extensively. I only had a Hot Rocks and Beggars so my knowledge and mileage on the Stones is much less.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Love both. Stones were always 2 steps behind the Beatles during the 60s. Of course the Beatles ceased to be a band more than 50 years ago while the Stones continue to tour and record so the comparison isn't really fair.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
Came here to post exactly this. By the time the Beatles broke up, the Stones were just hitting their stride. Let It Bleed came out in late '69, followed by Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street and Goat's Head Soup. They continued putting out good stuff for most of the '70s and early '80s, but have tailed off since then.
It's an interesting question as to what the Beatles would have done if they had stayed together. Given that Lennon was the only one whose solo work equaled/exceeded his Beatles output, it's possible they would have fallen off. Or maybe being in the same group would have pushed all of them to further heights. Or maybe they were always fated to break up. Impossible to say.
FairWarning
Footballguy
You don’t think McCartney’s post Beatles outdid his Beatles? Wings was bigger than Lennon IMO.
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
BTW, my 8-year-old has been on a Beatles kick recently, so I've been listening to a lot of their stuff whenever we're in the car. It's reignited my own internal John vs. Paul debate, which in some ways mirrors Beatles vs. Stones.
I think I first got into the Beatles as a pre-teen, and I was definitely Team Paul. By the time I was in high school in the late '80s/early '90s, I was much more into classic rock and then alternative, and I think that pushed me way more toward John (as well as the Stones). A lot of that was typical adolescent insecurity of wanting to identify with what was "cool", and John/Stones were indisputably cooler, and more alternative, than Paul/Beatles.
But listening to them now, when I'm a) less concerned with childish crap like that and b) more appreciative of well-crafted music, I find that I'm (re?) gaining a lot of respect for Paul. The stuff he was doing on those later Beatles albums, his ability to craft musically dense, interesting songs across multiple genres, was truly amazing. Even when he missed (Maxwell Silver Hammer, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da) you still had to give him some credit for the attempt. And when he hit (Eleanor Rigby, Got to Get You Into My Life, Helter Skelter, Paperback Writer, Long and Winding Road) those were absolute all-timers.
And by the way, this takes nothing away from John, who also wrote some really fantastic songs. Going back to what I said in my previous post, I do kinda buy the theory that it was the competition between them that drove each of them to new heights. It might even explain why Lennon had a better solo career. I read somewhere that he always felt like he had never written as big a hit as Yesterday until he made Imagine (though I suppose that wouldn't explain why he kept pumping out great songs even after that came out in '71)
I think I first got into the Beatles as a pre-teen, and I was definitely Team Paul. By the time I was in high school in the late '80s/early '90s, I was much more into classic rock and then alternative, and I think that pushed me way more toward John (as well as the Stones). A lot of that was typical adolescent insecurity of wanting to identify with what was "cool", and John/Stones were indisputably cooler, and more alternative, than Paul/Beatles.
But listening to them now, when I'm a) less concerned with childish crap like that and b) more appreciative of well-crafted music, I find that I'm (re?) gaining a lot of respect for Paul. The stuff he was doing on those later Beatles albums, his ability to craft musically dense, interesting songs across multiple genres, was truly amazing. Even when he missed (Maxwell Silver Hammer, Ob-la-di Ob-la-da) you still had to give him some credit for the attempt. And when he hit (Eleanor Rigby, Got to Get You Into My Life, Helter Skelter, Paperback Writer, Long and Winding Road) those were absolute all-timers.
And by the way, this takes nothing away from John, who also wrote some really fantastic songs. Going back to what I said in my previous post, I do kinda buy the theory that it was the competition between them that drove each of them to new heights. It might even explain why Lennon had a better solo career. I read somewhere that he always felt like he had never written as big a hit as Yesterday until he made Imagine (though I suppose that wouldn't explain why he kept pumping out great songs even after that came out in '71)
ignatiusjreilly
Footballguy
I was too young to be following any of this contemporaneously (and when I did become aware of McCartney in the '80s, he was putting out crap like Say Say Say) but my impression of his solo career is that only a few songs I've heard would have fit in well on a Beatles album. Maybe I'm Amazed for sure. Band on the Run. I'm sure there are others I'm missing, but there definitely aren't many I spend time thinking of. Whereas Lennon had a string of hits throughout the '70s
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Someone on YouTube had a bunch of "albums" that they put together from their 4 solo recordings released in a similar time period post Beatles. Quite good since the filler was now gone.
FairWarning
Footballguy
The McCartney 80’s stuff was awful IMO.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I like Wings and his solo stuff, but no way. That’s not a slight. The Beatles work was just fantastic.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
No comment on the Beatles v Stones debate. 
Skipdog77
Footballguy
You've got to at least get a few drinks in me before I tell you that info, guy.
Ted Lange as your Bartender
Footballguy
Well, considering that the Stones first top-20 single was a Lennon-McCartney song, Beatles by TKO
rockaction
Footballguy
Beatles>Kinks>Who>=Stones>Zombies or any other Brit invasion band
I know that one might stick in some craws, but my work is finished here. A re-appreciation of Revolver thanks to krista4's second countdown pushes the Beatles ahead of the Kinks just because they were so. sonically. ahead. of. their. time.
The Kinks' songwriting can't quite hold up to the Beatles' innovations in just about everything you want in music.
I know that one might stick in some craws, but my work is finished here. A re-appreciation of Revolver thanks to krista4's second countdown pushes the Beatles ahead of the Kinks just because they were so. sonically. ahead. of. their. time.
The Kinks' songwriting can't quite hold up to the Beatles' innovations in just about everything you want in music.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
That doesn’t seem relevant.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Most of it but Tug of War and Flowers in the Dirt were pretty good records IMO.
McCartney by far had more hits than Lennon in the 70s, not even close. Of course Lennon essentially retired from music after Walls and Bridges.
If you put Lennon and MecCartney's solo LPs from 1970-1975 side by side they both made great albums and had some clunkers. The reality is the two of them complimented each other perfectly and if you take the best tracks of these albums and put them on one LP, along with a couple from George in the same period, you would see there really was no drop off in quality.
And I would say that if you consider them working together in 1970-1975, along with George, Ringo and George Martin producing. The great stuff they put out as solo artists would have been even better.
As far as the Beatles vs the Stones thing, the great thing is that I don't need to choose between them - I love them both. That said I think it speaks volumes that none of the Stones solo output was even as successful than Ringo's stuff, let alone George, Paul and John.
rockaction
Footballguy
Mick just chicken walked on your future grave site
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
My personal list of British Invasion bands goes like this:
Beatles
Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Zombies
The Animals
Beatles
Stones
The Who
The Kinks
The Zombies
The Animals
rockaction
Footballguy
Anybody hear the news that elderly mice live a whole lot longer when they get blood infusions from younger mice? Anybody here think immediately of Keith Richards and the Stones when they heard that?
I did.
I did.
Manster
Footballguy
Two very different bands. The Stones are more gritty, dirty, wake up with a pounding head looking for your next score, kinda band. The Beatles more poppy for sure, and too many songs about love......but some great, iconic tunes......I much prefer their later stuff after they met Dylan or whatever.
The best album between the two of em is Sticky Fingers, imo. The late 60's early 70's Stones is quintessential rock and roll.
The best album between the two of em is Sticky Fingers, imo. The late 60's early 70's Stones is quintessential rock and roll.
Manster
Footballguy
To be fair, most 60's/70's bands, or solo artists from those bands, put out **** in the 80's
zamboni
Footballguy
One way I look at it is that the Stones put out subpar material (say, post-1981) for many more years than they put out great material in the late 1960s/early 1970s. The Beatles never put out anything bad and left at the top of their game.
Can't blame the Stones for continuing on for decades, but I think it dents their reputation a bit. Not exactly the same, but kind of like Hall of Famers such as Hank Aaron and Willie Mays playing a few years too long.
Can't blame the Stones for continuing on for decades, but I think it dents their reputation a bit. Not exactly the same, but kind of like Hall of Famers such as Hank Aaron and Willie Mays playing a few years too long.
Uruk-Hai
Footballguy
To play Devil's Advocate...........While I agree that the Stones' output over the last 40 years (mostly) doesn't equal their peak, I never thought they put out much that I would consider "bad". Some of the material is, IMO, quite good and always at least professional. That blues album they put out a few years ago was well-done.
I'd vote Beatles, by the way.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I've heard some people want to fill the world with silly love songs.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
The Stones have a few hidden gems on each album, from 1981 - present, and lots of filler - but so have Paul and Ringo (and I assume John and George would have done the same if still alive). I don't think the Beatles should be given deference for hating eachother and breaking up.
ETA: and the Stones even at 80, still put on great concerts
Mr. Mojo
Footballguy
I forgot to mention this. I've seen them a few times because my wife is a Stones fanatic and they do put out a great show.
Zow
Footballguy
What is the FFA without useless, inane blather though?
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
Gimme Sympathy by the band Metric has the line: "After all of this is gone, who would you rather be, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones." I wouldn't mind being either one.
