Beatles VS Rolling Stones?

Pick 1!

  • Total voters
    33
They both have different sounds. I think they get pitted against each other due to them both being popular at a similar time.

Just had a look at this site, some interesting facts on there.

I prefer The Beatles.
 
I would pick the Stones over the early Beatles because I don't like the bubble gum music. But once the Beatles evolved I'd choose them over the Stones any day.
 
The Rolling Stones were better than the Beatles after about 1975 or so but other than that David Bowie.
 
Jerry Atrick said:
I would pick the Stones over the early Beatles because I don't like the bubble gum music. But once the Beatles evolved I'd choose them over the Stones any day.
Click to expand...

The EARLY beatles were better than what you think the early beatles were....

check out "Beatles For Sale"


they used to love the blues... well, John did


but they had a life before the pops
 
And the stones didn't write pop music?

Charlie watts wishes he could play like Ringo.
Who do they have for lead guitar again? Right...they don't have anybody like George Harrison.

I'm not going to talk about putting up any band against the song writing skills of Lennon/Mcartney.

I like the stones. They had a few good albums. But they look abit washed up compared to one of the greatest groups of all time.

Ill concede that Mick Jagger is an awesome frontman. The stones beat the Beatles live. Which isn't saying much.
 
Last edited:
All the people dismissively saying the Beatles are annoying me now. I like them both but I think the only reason people revere the beatles and not the stones is because the beatles had the good sense to quit whilst they were ahead.

2000 light years from home beats Lucy in the sky with diamonds any day of the week.
 
jpgrdnr said:
Charlie watts wishes he could play like Ringo.
Click to expand...

what? as a drummer, both percussionists leave a lot to be wanted. Charlie Watts really has a boring straightforward approach to blues, that is so simplistic he can still play the same beats as old as he is today.

Ringo is usually too goofy to be liked by me. John always said that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the Beatles, something that baffles me as to why he was their drummer for so long.

well, half the time Ringo didn't even throw down the beats for Beatles albums, Paul or John did it for him.

I will take the Rolling Stones, I only dig early Beatles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top