The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones

Who do YOU prefer: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

  • Total voters
    30
And Bowie is far ecplipsed by the Velvet Underground, but let us not digress.
 
The Beatles were clean cut, nancy boys whereas the Rolling Stones, they were down right dirty!

Depending how you like your druggy sway, the Rolling Stones were all all hard core...man 8) oops up yeh :D
 
^ "clean cut, nancy boys"?

From this silly statement I wonder how much you know about the Beetles.

Does not compute. . Please explain this silliness to me?
 
neversickanymore said:
^ "clean cut, nancy boys"?

From this silly statement I wonder how much you know about the Beetles.

Does not compute. . Please explain this silliness to me?
Click to expand...

spacejunk said:
John Lennon.... Clean-cut nancy boy? Righto! 8o
Click to expand...

Lolz =D

Those Beatles started out all clean cut, suited and booted rock style - nancy style of the time but evolved into hippy-dippy- man through various influences such as Donovan, (who Felix and I have tickets for this October, Glasgow concert wow wow)... who influenced the Beatles towards a hippy evolution / very soft core druggy in my opinion).

"..He taught John Lennon a finger-picking guitar style in 1968.."

Go listen > Donovan.

Before that look at the Beatles, in their very early days :)

The Beatles - Please Please Me
 
That's not their early days - check out their preludin-fuelled Hamburg days.
If you read John Lennon's last interview, he bemoans the embarassment of their suited-moptop era; but it was their breakthrough.
All the other rock'n'rollers of the time were still back-combing their greased hair and playing 12 bar blues, and working the singles charts. LPs weren't really part of the "teen pop music" market before the beatles - and the vast majority didn't write their own songs or have their own bands play on their studio recordings. The Beatles changed so much of musical culture.
They incorporated multiple cultural influences, rather than mimicking african american music for decades, as the stones did best.
Hell, the Beatles' Lennon/McCartney were writing the odd song for the early Stones, who were still playing covers at that point.
 
I actually agree that sgt pepper's lonely hearts club band is a pretty overrated album, as far as "best album ever" hyperbole goes.
Some good songs....but some shitty ones too.
 
The question is silly but fun to dissect. The Beatles wrote better pop songs, they were pure pop while the Stones reached deeper into the past and gave the world a sharper Blues chord that I discovered on my own in high school, which makes the Stones personal therefore more important to me. It was always older people telling me how great the Beatles were and that I must absorb them. White Album, Rubber Soul, Sgt Pepper's sound great to me, they all hold up musically but I have no desire to listen to them routinely. I listen to the Stones several times a week every week, there's a spiritual dimension to the Blues and this band continues to tour, a great reminder of the soulfulness of the Blues.
 
OK so my parents loved the Stones so that's pretty much what I grew up listening to as a kid...it was great! They took me to one of their concerts when I was like 8 and I can remember every second of that show. Mick was on his way to wrinkles at that point so it wasn't as exciting as I was hoping but nonetheless it was still a kickass show! I got my tee shirt signed by all the guys, in my eyes I was a badass.

It wasn't until my early teens when I started using psychedelics did I start listening to the Beatles in depth. They were my salvation lol. ..I truly thought that with their words and my drugs that I could start a whole new revolution! I must say I was kind of whacked out but that's besides the point. I believed if I could just get everyone to feel how I was feeling and put on just one Beatles song, they'd fall in love with this idea, this revolution- with me. Any and all beatles albums were my life soundtrack. Anywhere I went, they all came too. The only song I really disliked was 'Number 9'. It really scared me during my 12 hour trips! Of course my friends thought it was hilarious, but not me! As I slowly grew out of that phase, more or less forced to grow up and get back to reality, my favorite friends, the Beatles started to dissappear..
I'm now in my early 20s and havent listened to the Beatles in years. I still love a good jam session blaring the Stones! My all time favorite is 'Gimme Shelter', I could probably live with that track on repeat haha. So my answer to your question would have to be the Stones! The Beatles set me free at a young age and I'm grateful for that but overall the Stones have always been there for me!
Over n out!
 
I think it'd be kind of interesting to have another "best band in the world" contest.
 
willow11 said:
You would think then that a collaboration between, say, Mick and Bowie would be impressive. Why is the actuality of it potentially civilisation-destroying?
Click to expand...

To be fair bob geldof is more responsible for that steaming pile of turd.

The Beatles equivalent is this
[video=youtube_share;nE3zJgO-0S4]http://youtu.be/nE3zJgO-0S4[/video]
 
You fucking would. I bet you rate ringo higher than Charlie too

I had such high hopes after this
[video=youtube_share;h-dIagv2tUw]http://youtu.be/h-dIagv2tUw[/video]
 
Nah, I guess if I had to pick between those two mediocre drummers, I'd go with Charlie. This topic, one that I've been discussing since I was a teenager, is kinda lost on me. Two completely different bands. I love them both a lot.

I'd rather rip cocaine all night to sticky fingers, but I'd prefer to get stoned on pot in my backyard on a sunny day to let it be. Although I don't mind blowing rails to the Beatles or smoking pot to the stones, either. Apples and oranges
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top