The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

[GnRIzzy]

I had an argument about my dad about who is better. I said Rolling Stones because they are amazing.

[Shuffle]

I think we've had this poll about a million times, but anyway... I prefer the Stones, why? Out of personal taste, the Beatles were more experimental and consistent than the Stones (it's an unfair comparison though, since the Stones have had almost forty years to release albums since the Beatles broke up).

[Chris Axl]

I enjoy the Beatles music more

[PappyTron]

I punched a bloke in the face once for saying The Rolling Stones are rubbish. The point is I was defending the band with terminal intensity, when what I *should* have said is "Dad, you're right, but let's give Paint It Black a try and we'll discuss it later."

[arnold layne]

I enjoy the Beatles music more

Me too.

[moreblack]

don't really listen to either, but what I've heard from both is pretty good.

[GnRIzzy]

When I think of Rolling Stones I think of Al Pacino. I don't really like anyone in the Beatles except Paul, I believe Paul was the best in the band and if it wasn't for him then Beatles would never be as big as they were.

[stacks on deck]

let's just say that if i cared less, i'd be careless.

[december pain]

Beatles are so much better imo

Both great, but still

[SpUd_Jr]

I don't understand why these two bands are always compared with each other. They're really not alike musically.

[mr. orangestone]

I said the Beatles. If the Stones had more albums like Sticky Fingers & Let It Bleed, it'd be closer. The Stones released lots of crap & I just think they aren't as talented songwriters. They're much more raw, gritty, & rock and roll (besides the later horrible stuff, but Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, & Exile on Main Street are masterpieces). The Beatles were very talented songwriters, they have amazing vocal harmonies & write great progressions. They were also a lot more innovative through experimentation. It's really a tough choice though.

Favorite Beatles albums are Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, & White Album. Sgt. Peppers is overrated & Let It Be isn't too consistent. Early Beatles had some great pop songs but isn't as interesting to me.

Edited March 2, 2009 by mr. orangestone

[dirtylenny]

Absolutely unequivocably the Beatles...by far...with no shadow of a doubt. To be honest its a poor comparison. The Beatles were more creative, more original, the sheer breadth of their musical scope, their ear (Lennon and McCartneys in particular but Harrisons no less) for melody, their understanding of harmony and how key it is to making infectuous music, their flawless synergy as musicians, always reaching forward, always pushing the envelope, always at the forefront, always developing, their humor (not just as a unit but the humor bought about from an inate self awareness that somehow they never let slip into self parody)...just everything.

The Stones dont really measure up. After the death of Brian Jones The Stones, to my mind, became a very very good band and nothing more or less and that in itself can get boring if you think about it. The Beatles were something else altogether, the Beatles were genius on tap, dishing out masterful music the way you and i might take a dump. The Beatles are to rock n roll what Muhammad Ali was to boxing or what Shakespeare was to the written word.

There has been nothing like the Beatles since and i dont think there ever will be...at least not in my lifetime. I have never heard a Stones album that i think stands up to any of the Beatles offerings...or even comes close.

That said i think comparisons like these are wholly redundant and dont do anything for music or the the people that make it or the people that listen to it.

Edited March 2, 2009 by dirtylenny

[Guest Satanisk_Slakt]

I enjoy the Beatles music more

Me too.

Me too. Much more.

[Randy Lahey]

I bleed Stones music.

[Turn_It_Up]

Stones by far. Purely subjective and can't deny how influential The Beatles were, but most of their stuff does nothing for me. Actually find much of it grating...

Edited March 3, 2009 by Turn_It_Up

[LightningBolt]

Definitely the Stones. Enjoy both, enjoy one much more.

[Powerage5]

Stones, because I've never found the Beatles the least bit interesting. But I'll take The Who any day as ultimate mid 60's British rock band.

[Guest deleted_19765]

It's true, in their time The Beatles were more innovative, creative, better writers and more influential, but The Rolling Stones carried the torch for a sort of music that is much closer to my heart, and there are surprisingly good moments to be found throughout their discography.

[appetite4illusions]

The Rolling Stones for me are a better representation of a 'rock' band.

[wasted]

The Stones are more of an Americanized rock band whereas The Beatles are more psychedelic.

I enjoy The Stones more but The Beatles were more innovative, the Stones almost shadowed them ideologically. The Beatles never made a Stones album.

The Stones have a darker appeal, The Beatles were a pretty positive band.

[AbominableHoman]

The Rolling Stones by far.

The Beatles are a joke.

[Malicious Matt]

Beatles.

I find their music to be much more interesting than the Stones.

[hans_moleman]

Beatles by far

[Randy Lahey]

The Stones because sometimes you just need a little coke and sympathy.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Randy Lahey

[Guest]

50/50 split on the voting, but i voted for the Stones

The Rolling Stones for me are a better representation of a 'rock' band.

+1

well put