Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

[johnny utah]

There are two type of men in this world, Stones men and Beatles men. I'm a Stones man. What are you guys?

 

[Illini88228]

Both, but if I had to choose, I'm a Beatles man.

John, Paul, George, and Ringo.

Listening to Help! was a revelation.

 

[bbgun]

Appreciate and enjoy both bands, but Fab Four for me.

 

[dreghorn2]

Stones baby, they were punk before there was punk.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

The Beatles

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

You can not go wrong with either but I think the beatles did more with less time.

 

[dreghorn2]

Not to get too carried away with this topic but being a rock n roll band, a true rock n roll band, means touring.

The rigors of the road and surviving all that come with it are true indicators of a bands greatness, in my eyes, because essentially that is what all bands start out wanting to do right -- be young guys who play their music to fans in a live setting.

The Beatles were excellent though, no question, Lennon and McCartney were effortless in their abilities to right good songs.

As an admitted predjudicial Stones fan however, i would be willing to say that the depth and quality of Jagger and Richards songwriting from say 68ish to 76ish is one of the best in history.

 

[Faerluna]

Appreciate and enjoy both bands, but Fab Four for me.

Bingo.

 

[Staggerlee]

Stones baby, they were punk before there was punk.

You realize that before the stones became popular over here they had the image of mods (like the beatles) but their manager changed their image before they started getting popular.

On an interesting note back when the beatles were young and not popular they were "rockers" and looked more like the stones do now but their manager thought that the mod look would help them get more popularity. So essentially, in the beginning at least, their image was constructed, a mere fabrication to gain popularity. Punk is the ramones and sex pistols. No fabricated images for popularity there.

 

[dreghorn2]

You realize that before the stones became popular over here they had the image of mods (like the beatles) but their manager changed their image before they started getting popular.

On an interesting note back when the beatles were young and not popular they were "rockers" and looked more like the stones do now but their manager thought that the mod look would help them get more popularity. So essentially, in the beginning at least, their image was constructed, a mere fabrication to gain popularity. Punk is the ramones and sex pistols. No fabricated images for popularity there.

No, not quite true, the Who were designed to be the answer for the Mods. No big deal.

Sex Pistols rocked though, no question.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I honestly never knew I had to choose. They were both fine by me.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Neither.

 

[Vtwin]

Stones and it ain't even close.

 

[Signals]

Beatles

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm a Stoned Beatle. :laugh2:

 

[Wolfpack]

Stones.

 

[Dallas]

I can't stand the Beetles. Never did get into their music. Its either that or it was overplayed so much, I just wasn't able to like it.


After a while...its just OLD MUSIC.

 

[jcollins28]

The Beatles were excellent though, no question, Lennon and McCartney were effortless in their abilities to right good songs.

I actually think George Harrison wrote the best Beatles songs.

 

[Wimbo]

I really like some parts of both bands, but really dislike some parts of both bands. They are about even for me.

 

[trickblue]

Stones... hands down...

I can appreciate the Beatles and what they meant to R&R, was just never a big fan. Obviously they had/have some good tunes, just not my cup of tea...

Give me the Rolling Stones and The Who from that era...