The Stones vs. The Beatles

What band is better?

I used to be a die-hard, obsessive Beatles fan when I was younger. I still appreciate their music, but I'm not that much into it as I once was. Plus, The Stones are more of a rock band, where a lot of The Beatles' work plays like pop music. I'd say their best rock albums are THE BEATLES, ABBEY ROAD, and LET IT BE. As for The Stones, I was raised with their music and have always appreciated them.



I own some ticket stubs, pins and posters that my parents kept around from the Stones' '81 American Tour. Pretty neat collectibles.

I'm going with the Stones. But only just.

The Beatles, without a second tought. Their output and influences are far more varied (from scuffle, to beat, to musical hall, to brass brands, to country, to folk, to psychedelic rock to hard rock) and there's more of an evolution to their music. With the Stones (as much as I like them), it's more of the same. Plus, The Beatles have got more sentimental value to me, with my dad being a die hard fan (met Sir Paul several times in his career), and some of earliest musical memories being of their songs. I also find the Stones more of an American band (in the Southern blues tradition they belong to) despite being upper middle class Brits, maybe explaining why Brandon and Khan favour them. For obvious reasons that's a more distant world to me.

However in the end, both bands are pop (ular).

It's like comparing pepsi to absinthe and then trying to justify the difference.

I'll give the edge to the Beatles.

I did not call into question my shameless bias for British bands....

I would chose The Who.

I deeply dislike the Stones, although I admit that they have a handful of excellent songs: "Gimme Shelter", "Paint It Black", "Sympathy For the Devil" and a couple of others.

I much prefer The Beatles, although I find roughly 40% of their output to be preposterously overrated dross.

Neither band even approaches The Stone Roses.

Loomis wrote:

Neither band even approaches The Stone Roses.

I wouldn't say that, but that fact that they've only produced two albums helps enormously in not having much chaff (if any). I wager if they had come close to the Beatles in the quantity of their output, the chance of there being "preposterously overrated dross" would be a lot higher. It's equivalent to a frontman dying young. Ian Curtis never had the years to sell out.

That said, all of that potentially changed for the Roses in 2011.

Missed out on seeing them at the Leeds Fest this year. :(

Who the hell are the Stone Roses?

Case in point.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Loomis wrote:

Neither band even approaches The Stone Roses.

I wouldn't say that, but that fact that they've only produced two albums helps enormously in not having much chaff (if any).

True.

Largo's Shark wrote:

I wouldn't say that, but that fact that they've only produced two albums helps enormously in not having much chaff (if any). I wager if they had come close to the Beatles in the quantity of their output, the chance of there being "preposterously overrated dross" would be a lot higher.

Agreed, although Ian Brown's and John Squire's solo work has been of a consistently high quality (albeit not really up there with the Roses' efforts). The less said about The Seahorses the better, though. But, yeah, your point is taken.

Largo's Shark wrote:

Missed out on seeing them at the Leeds Fest this year. :(

I saw them in Amsterdam this summer. We'll have to wait and see (or rather hear) whether their new material (rumoured for next year) is any good, but as live musicians they're currently on their best ever form. Reni in particular is a revelation.

Easily The Rolling Stones! I despise The Beatles; their music is garbage in an otherwise great era of classic rock music. I cringe every time I hear them on the radio, especially that horrid "Come Together" song. Ouch, that one hurts the ears! The Stones just blow them away, it's unbelievable how much better they are. Just listen to "Brown Sugar" or "Start Me Up", and that says enough on this debate!

:roll:

Proving what I said before about many yanks not "getting" The Beatles. Especially classic rock puritans.

Largo's Shark wrote:

:roll:

Proving what I said before about many yanks not "getting" The Beatles. Especially classic rock puritans.

What's there to "get"? Their music is crud!

00Beast wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

:roll:

Proving what I said before about many yanks not "getting" The Beatles. Especially classic rock puritans.

What's there to "get"?

Everything, but they're a very English band, whereas The Stones are English in name only. Their music almost solely draws from the American South. Even Jagger's vocal inflections are American.

The Beatles are the better band. Far more influential than The Stones, with a more diverse and interesting output. Thanks to the expertise and training of George Martin, they were revolutionaries. The Rolling Stones just rode the wave that greater musicians had formed.

Loomis wrote:

I deeply dislike the Stones, although I admit that they have a handful of excellent songs: "Gimme Shelter", "Paint It Black", "Sympathy For the Devil" and a couple of others.

I much prefer The Beatles, although I find roughly 40% of their output to be preposterously overrated dross.

I tend to agree with that. I don't dislike the Stones' music in general, but rather the members of the group, and the pathetic obsession with them by a lot of their fans and critics. THE BEATLES also receive preposterous, partially undeserved accolades.
The Stones' music has been very derivative and repetitive throughout half a century, but circa a dozen songs, perhaps some more, are really very good.
I like many songs on AFTERMATH, BEGGAR'S BANQUET, EXILE, and STICKY FINGERS (and some others in addition).
I'd choose THE BEATLES for their musical variety. I like ABBEY ROAD, half of the songs on RUBBER SOUL and THE WHITE ALBUM, LET IT BE too has a number of fine songs, but SGT. PEPPER (most of the album) and a lot of other songs on the albums mentioned on on other albums are pretty crap.
On that note, I find the aggression by some fans disturbing when someone dares to criticize their favourite music group or filmmaker. It's particularly strong among fans of THE ROLLING STONES, LED Z., and TARANTINO. (Not coincidentally, you will find a lot of people among those who are addicted to playing shoot-'em-up video games.) But that's a whole different kind of question worthy of a separate discussion.

Largo's Shark wrote:

00Beast wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

:roll:

Proving what I said before about many yanks not "getting" The Beatles. Especially classic rock puritans.

What's there to "get"?

Everything, but they're a very English band, whereas The Stones are English in name only. Their music almost solely draws from the American South. Even Jagger's vocal inflections are American.

The Beatles are the better band. Far more influential than The Stones, with a more diverse and interesting output. Thanks to the expertise and training of George Martin, they were revolutionaries. The Rolling Stones just rode the wave that greater musicians had formed.

I would say the Stones are a better "band", as in a tight-knit group of musicians in the more roadhouse rock n' roll sense. The Beatles were more inventive songwriters and more a studio band; pushing the envelope. I will always favor the Beatles for their songwriting first and foremost. There are so many songs of theirs that I have listened to for years and I have still not and probablly will never tire of: Norwegian Wood, A Day in the Life, I'm Only Sleeping, In My Life, Here Comes the Sun, Dear Prudence, Penny Lane...so many! But as a mean, balls to the wall, cut your teeth on rock-n-roll workhorse band, the Stones are superior. Just watch any live footage of them from the early 70's - the rhythm section of Charlie and Bill, the bluesy, loose groove of Mick Taylor and Kief, the brash and vulgar presence and blue-eye soul snarl of Mick: no rock n roll band can compare.

By the way Shark, did I read correctly above that you've met Sir Paul, or was that your Dad?

FG Wells wrote:

By the way Shark, did I read correctly above that you've met Sir Paul, or was that your Dad?

That indeed was my old man.

Largo's Shark wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

By the way Shark, did I read correctly above that you've met Sir Paul, or was that your Dad?

That indeed was my old man.

8) Very Cool

FG Wells wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

By the way Shark, did I read correctly above that you've met Sir Paul, or was that your Dad?

That indeed was my old man.

8) Very Cool

He also wrote a song for Chris Rea (Mention of Your Name), and knows both Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood.

Neither

I once heard a taped interview with Winwood. He was as incoherent and inarticulate as any adult I've ever heard. It was one long slur and babble.

Perilagu Khan wrote:

I once heard a taped interview with Winwood. He was as incoherent and inarticulate as any adult I've ever heard. It was one long slur and babble.

Cocaine's a hell of a drug.

Largo's Shark wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

Largo's Shark wrote:

FG Wells wrote:

By the way Shark, did I read correctly above that you've met Sir Paul, or was that your Dad?

That indeed was my old man.

8) Very Cool

He also wrote a song for Chris Rea (Mention of Your Name), and knows both Eric Clapton and Steve Winwood.

I hear that Paul is a pretty down to Earth friendly guy in person...I'd love to meet him.

What do people think of Clapton? As a guitar player myself, I appreciate his contribution, but I admit he put out some wanky material in the 90's during his Babyface phase. But Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs is still a great record.