Memnoch The Devil Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) In the "Don't Damn Me" forum, we did the big 90s two biggest bands in the world Battle, GN'R vs. NirvanaSo I want to take it back a little to what was the big debate a generation earlier, and that's the Beatles vs. The Rolling StonesNow, to be fair: Since the Beatles disbanded in 1970, go only by what the Rolling Stones had released by 1970. Edited January 4, 2009 by Memnoch The Devil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Sabbath Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Beatles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Lahey Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) I prefer the style of music that the Stones make. Sympathy For The Devil and Gimme Shelter are just untouchable.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6iSPQiYLU Edited January 4, 2009 by Randy Lahey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Laura- Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Beatles! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootingstar Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) I prefer the style of music that the Stones make. Sympathy For The Devil and Gimme Shelter are just untouchable.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d6iSPQiYLUrolling stones for me too. They have made so many underrated songs. Actually IMO, there´s no band that have made that amount of underrated songs. Ever.I like the stycky fingers album. Here´s a song with flow from that album B) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzKczV_k6I4 On a side note: Micks solo works isn´t bad either.EDIT* Well u said before 1970. Must research which songs were made before that. Edited January 4, 2009 by shootingstar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The fucking Beatles. No matter how much you love The Stones, The Beatles will always be the better band, especially if you only compare them by pre-1970 releases. And that isn't even a subjective statement, it is pretty much a fact. There have been times where I preferred The Rolling Stones, but no matter how much I appreciated them, they never came close to The Beatles. Edited January 4, 2009 by Lithium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The fucking Beatles. No matter how much you love The Stones, The Beatles will always be the better band, especially if you only compare them by pre-1970 releases. And that isn't even a subjective statement, it is pretty much a fact. There have been times where I preferred The Rolling Stones, but no matter how much I appreciated them, they never came close to The Beatles.And that is all there is to it! And I too love the Stones, but......whitout Beatles no Stones. They were the founders of everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Exactly. It's pretty obvious that The Stones followed a lot of the paths The Beatles took when they saw how successful and how much praise The Beatles got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GivenToFly Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 For the life of me I could never figure out what so many people find so good about The Beatles. I have tried very hard to get into at least some of their music, but it all (minus 2 exceptions) sounds too unappealing to me. I adore Hey Jude. I absolutely love that song! And I like Let It Be. And I've heard some ok covers of Helter Skelter, Come Together and With A Little Help From My Friends, but I don't like the originals. And that's it!Wtf?!The Rolling Stones on the other hand are my second favorite band, behind GNR, so no contest for me here, regardless of the decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lithium Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 For the life of me I could never figure out what so many people find so good about The Beatles. I have tried very hard to get into at least some of their music, but it all (minus 2 exceptions) sounds too unappealing to me. I adore Hey Jude. I absolutely love that song! And I like Let It Be. And I've heard some ok covers of Helter Skelter, Come Together and With A Little Help From My Friends, but I don't like the originals. And that's it!Wtf?!The Rolling Stones on the other hand are my second favorite band, behind GNR, so no contest for me here, regardless of the decade.The thing is, I don't think Memnoch here wants to know which one you prefer, he wants people to discuss which one is superior to the other, and if you look at it objectively, The Beatles has so much more to offer than The Rolling Stones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shuffle Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 If we're talking influence and all that it's easily The Beatles but my personal favourite is the Stones. Of course it gets a bit weird since you take away three of the Stones' best albums by removing everything after 1970 though... The Beatles might actually win then (in personal preference too). Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Aftermath vs. Revolver, Rubber Soul and A Hard Day's Night...tough. But then I prefer many of the rest of the Beatles' albums over most of the 60s Stones albums. Guess the Beatles win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthisriver Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 In the "Don't Damn Me" forum, we did the big 90s two biggest bands in the world Battle, GN'R vs. NirvanaSo I want to take it back a little to what was the big debate a generation earlier, and that's the Beatles vs. The Rolling StonesNow, to be fair: Since the Beatles disbanded in 1970, go only by what the Rolling Stones had released by 1970. http://www.mygnrforum.com/index.php?showto...+stones+beatlesDo really need to keep making the same threads over and over? Are you going for some kind of fucking record? I understand that other people might create a thread that has already been done, but you repeat yourself. I find it kinda weird to be honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtylenny Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 *raises his hand* The Who!!!! j/k!!!on topic: The Beatles, no fucking question. On absolutely every concievable level. In terms of influence, in terms of quality of studio matierial, in terms of innovation, in terms of forward thinking and invention, in terms of the sheer scope of their reach in a shorter period than the stones have managed in 30 years, you can drag everything the stones did post 1970 into the mix and it still dont mean shit, The Beatles will take you where you wanna go and bring it back everytime, they were just the perfect band, just utterly perfect.Theres two possible things that The Stones, it is often said, have or had going for thema) they were the better live act, which is pretty fucking suspect anyway cuz from 1963 onwards you could hardly hear what the fuck the Beatles were doing onstage anyway...not that the stones didnt have their share of that but, i dunno, i heard this interview from the 60s where Jagger was like, yeah, we belong more onstage and The Beatles are more a studio band which is an interesting observation but Mick fails to realise here that they didnt quit cuz they sucked live, they quit cuz they couldn't be heard, it was this mass hysteria that was encrouching on their lives, to the point of death threats and predictions of death...this sort of in-progress riot that seemed to be following them wherever they went that was jus....impractical and dangerous. Besides which, what do you call a band that people come to see and not hear? odd question, i know..B) The Stones were working tough guys and the Beatles were kinda soft, which again, is absolutely fucking bullshit. Even to this day, Richmond in London as opposed to the specific part Liverpool where the beatles grew up and made their bones, theres a HUGE fucking difference and Liverpool is a hundred million times more tough and working class. The Beatles cut their milk teeth on the Reaperbahn in Germany in Hamburg, which was fucking notorious in those days, can you imagine this band of fucking english boys, the youngest of whom was 15 at the time, on this strip in germany brimming with fucking gangsters and strippers and pillheads and prostitutes, not even understanding the fucking language, playing two four hour performances a day, pilled up to the eyeballs cuz they cant stay awake, being pumped full of beer and literally making an audience from the ground up, sleeping behind fucking porno theatre screens with a basin to wash out of. Compare that to what the stones were up to, doesnt really measure up...Fact is Brian Epstein found these be-leathered boys and put em in nifty little suits with cuban heels pointy boots and shit and there ya have it, instant pullers, Where as Loog Oldham messed their hair up and found em a decidedly public place to take a leak in and hey presto, bad boys, when the shit was the other way around really.Those are the only two comparisons that come close to holding any water and the beatles come out on top in that regard too so there ya have it.Answer: The Beatles, all day, everytime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juadlu Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 The Beatles- they shaped a whole teenage generationn fashion and music wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Dog Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Stones Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Stones by a mile. The Beatles would be much better if they never had Paul McCartney. All their songs that aren't Paul-heavy are great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stiff Competition Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 The Beatles without a shadow of a doubt.They were much more creative and much better songwriters. For fuck's sake, the stones were doing all covers and management came in and told jagger/richards "we need you to be more like lennon/mccartney"I mean honestly, when the Beatles made Sgt. Pepper, the stones creative response was "their satanic majesties request" which is a good album but compared to pepper it's garbage. The Beatles had arguably the best songwriter in history in Lennon and one of the best Pop-writers ever in Macca.Nothing against the Stones though, I love them and think Beggar's Banquet is pretty much a flawless album but the Beatles are the greatest band to ever be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deleted_19765 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O7PnvVgQvA...feature=relatedAs much as my heart may go with the Stones, there's no comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthisriver Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Stones by a mile. The Beatles would be much better if they never had Paul McCartney. All their songs that aren't Paul-heavy are great!Wow, I didn't know you were THAT stupid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 There wouldn't be a Rolling Stones if there were no Beatles. Their first hit was "I Wanna Be Your Man". http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GyTzn3YrwmA&...feature=relatedhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dM17IPIFxUs&...feature=relatedhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3AXiIVuPHCghttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HckhrimvW88&...feature=relatedhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=t64Sn10D0bohttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lWNskWgMWi8&...feature=relatedhttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KyK0y02HvVchttp://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ3l8r2wgtg&...feature=relatedHere's a Ferrell remix of Sympathy for the Devil http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iL_RbCGxqsc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Whatever man, The Beatles songs that heavily feature Paul suck and make me not really like the Beatles, but the ones where he's more or less in the background are excellent songs I love to listen to. Also, I don't like Paul's solo shit or Wings, so Sir Paul can go fuck himself. The Beatles would have been so much better without him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest deleted_19765 Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 I personally think that Paul was the greatest songwriter/singer/musician in the band. Someone asked John in an interview if he thought Ringo was the best drummer in the world, he said that he wasn't in even the best in the band, Paul was! Paul's material is culled from so many sources. He's an obvious audiophile but has the genius to make any creative influence into high quality material. His parts are also generally more difficult to sing, and I've tried most of The Beatles repertoire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomazrui Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 beatles, no doubt.but I really like the Stones too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bi-polarbear* Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 beatles Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthisriver Posted January 5, 2009 Share Posted January 5, 2009 Whatever man, The Beatles songs that heavily feature Paul suck and make me not really like the Beatles, but the ones where he's more or less in the background are excellent songs I love to listen to. Also, I don't like Paul's solo shit or Wings, so Sir Paul can go fuck himself. The Beatles would have been so much better without him. :rofl-lol: Just say you don't like the Beatles at all, rather than making stupid comments like this. 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.