Zint 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.We're really just arguing opinion when it comes right down to it.Clearly,because if this came down to which band was more inluential on modern culture and music,The Beatles mop the floor with the Stones.I love the Stones,but for every Beatles song you post that you don't like,I could very easily counterpoint with a not so great Stone's song.(and I think you know that) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds 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.We're really just arguing opinion when it comes right down to it.Clearly,because if this came down to which band was more inluential on modern culture and music,The Beatles mop the floor with the Stones.I love the Stones,but for every Beatles song you post that you don't like,I could very easily counterpoint with a not so great Stone's song.(and I think you know that)I would actually think the Stones have a slight edge on influence. The Keef influence on all rock guitarists since and the Mick influence on all frontmen since holds great weight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite 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.We're really just arguing opinion when it comes right down to it.Clearly,because if this came down to which band was more inluential on modern culture and music,The Beatles mop the floor with the Stones.I love the Stones,but for every Beatles song you post that you don't like,I could very easily counterpoint with a not so great Stone's song.(and I think you know that)I would actually think the Stones have a slight edge on influence. The Keef influence on all rock guitarists since and the Mick influence on all frontmen since holds great weight.Mick okay but how so with Keith? just a load of Bluesery and Keith didnt invent that.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pain cake Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Rolling Stones were probably the worst live band, Jagger's voice was shite and the guitar tone was nothing special Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Rolling Stones were probably the worst live band, Jagger's voice was shite and the guitar tone was nothing specialLe Who on the other hand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ffrankwhite Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Aye carumba! The Stones would not exist without the Beatles. Neither would The Who, the Velvet Underground, or any other band that was dissimilar but still came out of the classic rock n' roll era. The Beatles literally redefined music and opened the floodgates for "bands," period. Before that things were very different. They basically invented the structure of pop rock songs and ushered in a new era, so while bands like the VU may not have admitted to being directly influenced by the Beatles, it goes without saying that any pop/rock band was inherently influenced by them.The Stones were initially marketed as a Brit pop band. After the Beatles' huge impact, record labels were looking everywhere for new "Fab Four" groups, and they searched England for more British imports. Look at the album cover for "England's Newest Sensations" and you'll see Keith and Mick with their mop tops. Over time they established themselves as being quite different on a musical level - even their early work was mostly covers of older blues songs which immediately set them apart from The Beatles on a certain level - and that's ultimately what gave them longevity, because other bands counter-marketed against The Beatles were around for about a year and died off.I think Mick was more influential on the modern frontman, because whereas the Beatles didn't have a single consistent frontman for the band, Mick was always a constant and defined the sort of frontmen we see a lot today (like Weiland). His stage presence was unique and became a mold for others to emulate. So the Stones WERE hugely influential in their own way and, for me, define the ultimate stereotypical dirty "rock n' roll" band, through on stage and off stage antics, and I personally prefer the Stones, but there's no denying quality-wise The Beatles were more consistent and had better songs. I just personally enjoy bluesier stuff, so I tend to side with the Stones.a lot of overstatement going on here bro. invented the structure of pop rock songs, how'd you figure? redefined music? they just played rock n roll dude and they certainly didnt invent that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Axl Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 The Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCGNR Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 You guys are nutsIf the Beatles were still going today, you think they'd be playing the same damn song over and over like the Stones are doing? Not a fucking chanceBeatles all the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthisriver Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Damn, how many times can we have the same fucking thread. Beatles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild_Child Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Definately The Beatles, Stones don't do much for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuffle Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 I'd rather listen to the Stones, one of my favorite bands, but objectively (more or less at least) The Beatles were better... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUNSNROSES513 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Stones, they are more my style. But Beatles are more consistant, any song I listen too by them I most likely will like. Love Revolution is a real good song, Hey Jude, every song. But like I said I am more into blues rock, hair metal, classic rock, southern rock... ect. But they would NOT be here without the Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zint Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Rolling Stones were probably the worst live band, Jagger's voice was shite and the guitar tone was nothing specialoh fuck...so dead wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanGenie Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 Tomorrow Never Knows is better than any Stones song or album. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlrose15 Posted May 21, 2008 Share Posted May 21, 2008 (edited) Rolling Stones definately! better songs! more rock n roll! Edited May 21, 2008 by axlrose15 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 (edited) The Rolling Stones have better songs and albums than The Beatles and that's all that matters to me. Edited May 22, 2008 by Randy Lahey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBear Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Hey, look who's a Stones fan! Um, I was just on her website for research purposes. That's all, really! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Rambler Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Asking me to pick a favourite is like asking me to choose between my kids (if i had any). I simply couldnt. I love em both for different reasons, i remember reading an interview with johnny marr ages ago where i think he sumed up how the beatles get u and how the stones get u. What johnny said was that the beatles get u in the head and the stones get u in the gut or somethin to that effect. Its the feeling of the songs with the stones more than anythin else, their music just oozes soul, coolness, punkyness, whatever the fuck you call it (tunes like jumpin jack flash), whereas with the beatles its song structure, lyrics etc, u think about beatles songs imo (a day in the life). I dunno if im expressign this well here but anyway, theyre the two greatest bands of all time imo and i could never pick a favourite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Rambler Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Asking me to pick a favourite is like asking me to choose between my kids (if i had any). I simply couldnt. I love em both for different reasons, i remember reading an interview with johnny marr ages ago where i think he sumed up how the beatles get u and how the stones get u. What johnny said was that the beatles get u in the head and the stones get u in the gut or somethin to that effect. Its the feeling of the songs with the stones more than anythin else, their music just oozes soul, coolness, punkyness, whatever the fuck you call it (tunes like jumpin jack flash), whereas with the beatles its song structure, lyrics etc, u think about beatles songs imo (a day in the life). I dunno if im expressign this well here but anyway, theyre the two greatest bands of all time imo and i could never pick a favourite.Well said, although with your name I would have expected you to say The Stones.I do listen to the stones way more than i listen to the beatles but... theres just somethin about those two bands, i just cant choose between em. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axlrose15 Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 Hey, look who's a Stones fan! Um, I was just on her website for research purposes. That's all, really!haha yeh right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeanGenie Posted May 22, 2008 Share Posted May 22, 2008 (edited) The Rolling Stones have better songs and albums than The Beatles and that's all that matters to me.In which world do you live? the beatles wrote songs for the stones because they couldn't land a hit on their own. Edited May 22, 2008 by JeanGenie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted May 23, 2008 Share Posted May 23, 2008 The Rolling Stones have better songs and albums than The Beatles and that's all that matters to me.In which world do you live? the beatles wrote songs for the stones because they couldn't land a hit on their own.Big deal, they gave one song to The Stones before Mick and Keith started writing their own songs. I live in the world where The Stones wrote and recorded Gimme Shelter and Sympathy For The Devil. 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.