Vincent Vega Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Who better? And why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axlin08 Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Music = StonesQuality = BeatlesI prefer the sound of the Stones, and their music as a personal preference. But the Beatles catalog is far more consistent, quality, and ground breaking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
december pain Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 Hasn't this been done like a million times before?Anyway, its the Beatles hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCGNR Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 BeatlesLove em' both, but The Beatles fucking changed music and they were not afraid to experiment with different soundsThe Stones always seemed to be following the Beatles leadPlus, outside of Zeppelin, I don't think a better collection of musicians has ever been assembled in the same band Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 20, 2008 Share Posted May 20, 2008 oh my godnooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Rolling Stones are better. Gimme Shelter>Any Beatles SongSympathy for the Devil>Any Beatles SongLet it Bleed, Beggar's Banquet, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main Street>Any Beatles albumI don't give a shit about who changed music and who the critics darlings are. I'm basing it off of who I listen to. I like a lot of Beatles songs but I also hate a lot of their songs. To me The Beatles albums sound dated whereas the Stones of the 68-72 era are timeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 ffrank...please....pretty please....don't! How many fucking times have we been down this road?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Beatles are more of a nerd band. People who were hip in the 60's liked The Stones better from what I gather. The same people (in general) who think The Beatles are better than The Stones would tell you that U2 is better than the original GNR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyMonk Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Persoanlly I prefer The Stones, I don't want to look at them both objectively though for fear of ruining my enjoyment of either one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Beatles are more of a nerd band. People who were hip in the 60's liked The Stones better from what I gather."My brother's still at home,with his Beatles and Stones"...All The Young DudesYou gather incorrectly.Most people liked both.Sgt. Pepper was a major stoner album...light years ahead of the Stones blowing any minds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I like CERTAIN Beatles songs and albums. I like ALL Stones songs and albums. I like the Beatles in their songs with a lesser McCartney influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Beatles are more of a nerd band. People who were hip in the 60's liked The Stones better from what I gather. The same people (in general) who think The Beatles are better than The Stones would tell you that U2 is better than the original GNR.The Stones were never as big as The Beatles. No band was.The Doors aren't as big as The Eagles but we all know who is cooler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCGNR Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 To me The Beatles albums sound dated whereas the Stones of the 68-72 era are timeless.Dated? The early Beatles albums contain songs that all follow a certain pattern.............which is why they tried to evolve and expand their soundand a lot of people would tell you that they pulled it off rather well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I don't really care who's cooler...it's about the music for me.Beatles and Stones are on par in that department as far as I'm concerned.I hold both bands in the highest regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) The Beatles are more of a nerd band. People who were hip in the 60's liked The Stones better from what I gather."My brother's still at home,with his Beatles and Stones"...All The Young DudesYou gather incorrectly.Most people liked both.Sgt. Pepper was a major stoner album...light years ahead of the Stones blowing any minds.2000 Light Years From Home is still better than The Beatles best psychedelic song. Sgt. Pepper's is a better album than Her Satanic Majesties request though. Give me The Doors and Jimi Hendrix over The Stones and The Beatles in 67 though. Actually I'll take The Doors, CCR, and Hendrix over The Beatles too. Edited May 21, 2008 by Randy Lahey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 To me The Beatles albums sound dated whereas the Stones of the 68-72 era are timeless.Nice of you to carefully avoid the Stones dated (nerdy??) material pre '68!But if we are going to pick and choose eras..Something,Two Of Us,Helter Skelter,Dear Prudence,Revolution,Norwegian Wood,Happiness Is A Warm Gun,Rain,A Day In The Life,Birthday,Yer Blues,In My Life,Back In The U.S.S.R.,Get Back,And Your Bird Can Sing,Taxman,She Said She Said,A Day In The Life....to name but a few.Timeless songs for certain,(and far superior) than 98% of the crap being tossed out today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axlin08 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 BeatlesLove em' both, but The Beatles fucking changed music and they were not afraid to experiment with different soundsThe Stones always seemed to be following the Beatles leadPlus, outside of Zeppelin, I don't think a better collection of musicians has ever been assembled in the same bandI really have always thought Harrison & Starr were overrated.I think the trio of Mercury/May/Taylor from Queen deserve a mention, as does the trio of Henley/Frey/Walsh from tweaked lineup Eagles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 2000 Light Years From Home is still better than The Beatles best psychedelic song. Sgt. Pepper's is a better album than Her Satanic Majesties request though.2000 Light Years From Home is the Stones dancing as fast as they can to keep up with the innovation of the Beatles.The Beatles were leaving them in the dust....(and they knew it,and readily admit it).Strange that the "cool guys" tried their hardest to emulate "the nerds". Oh look...I have a version of the cool guys doing the nerd's song I Wanna Be Your Man!Writing off the Beatles and their impact on rock and roll just because you like the Stones better is absurd.You can thank the Beatles for the fact that you've even heard of the Stones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 2000 Light Years From Home is still better than The Beatles best psychedelic song. Sgt. Pepper's is a better album than Her Satanic Majesties request though.2000 Light Years From Home is the Stones dancing as fast as they can to keep up with the innovation of the Beatles.The Beatles were leaving them in the dust....(and they knew it,and readily admit it).Strange that the "cool guys" tried their hardest to emulate "the nerds". Oh look...I have a version of the cool guys doing the nerd's song I Wanna Be Your Man!Writing off the Beatles and their impact on rock and roll just because you like the Stones better is absurd.You can thank the Beatles for the fact that you've even heard of the Stones.We're not arguing over who is more influential though. We're arguing over who is better. The Stones have better songs and albums than than The Beatles, so The Stones win. I actually like a lot of Beatles songs, but other than maybe Revolver, I can't listen to any of their albums all the way through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Beatles best album is probably "the blue album" and that's a compilation album so...Sgt. Peppers is a unique album but maybe Revolver or The White Album is their best, Let It Be good album as well. But the Blue Album puts a lot of their best songs on a double cd, it's pretty hard to beat as a collection of songs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) The Beatles best album is probably "the blue album" and that's a compilation album so...Sgt. Peppers is a unique album but maybe Revolver or The White Album is their best, Let It Be good album as well. But the Blue Album puts a lot of their best songs on a double cd, it's pretty hard to beat as a collection of songs.Hot Rocks is a better compilation than The Blue Album though. Edited May 21, 2008 by Randy Lahey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunkyMonk Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Stones have better songs and albums than than The Beatles, so The Stones win.Eeesh Randy I don't think anyone can be that absolute in this argument, it's like an age old question, they were completely different bands and I don't really welcome the comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Satanisk_Slakt Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Beatles for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) The Stones have better songs and albums than than The Beatles, so The Stones win.Eeesh Randy I don't think anyone can be that absolute in this argument, it's like an age old question, they were completely different bands and I don't really welcome the comparison.We're really just arguing opinion when it comes right down to it. Edited May 21, 2008 by Randy Lahey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 ffrank...please....pretty please....don't! okay *zips up* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.