The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones

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

  • Total voters
    30
swilow

swilow

Sr. Moderator: AADD, CE&P, TD
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2005
Messages
33,317
I feel that this vital question needs answering, and I really think that, as the heart of the internet, we are the natural choices to do so. I searched for 15 seconds for a similar topic, assumed there was one that I couldn't find and then thought, why not do it again?

This can sometimes be like the duality of night/day, black/white, hot/cold- which 60's icons are your most cherished?

The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones.

StonesBeatles.jpg


For me, the only answer can be The Beatles. I love pretty much everything they have done, with an emphasis on Rubber Soul on, though I have a fondness for their early poptastic stuff too. My favorite album would be The White Album, followed by Sgt Peppers, then Abbey Road, then Rubber Soul/Revolver/MMT/don't-make-me-choose. My favorite song, possibly of all time, is I Am The Walrus though Strawberry Fields Forever is up there. John Lennon is a hero to me, though my fanboyishness has declined a bit as I see him a more human now. I admire his forthright and often terse wit, and his attempted honesty. I don't especially like what I know about his personal life, but that's (possibly) immaterial. I cannot believe what The Beatles achieved in under 10 years. They not only changed the foundations of popular music, but they also helped shape the culture of the 1960's, an era held by many as being important for kickstarting numerous social and cultural changes. They influenced fashion, art, consumerism, drug use, technology use, etc. Even removing the fact of being the highest selling band of all time, The Beatles created such beautiful and enduring music. Sure, some of the stuff is dated, but a lot of it is fresh and powerful. <3

The Rolling Stones have always been a love/hate band for me. I think they released some fucking awesome stuff from about 1965 to 1973, but I think they lost it majorly after that. I've not bothered with listening in depth to many modern albums, though I probably should if I want to justify criticising them. Highlight albums are Let It Bleed, Exile on Mainstreet, Sticky Fingers and Beggars Banquet. Top tracks would have to be Paint it Black (one of the great tunes ever), Brown Sugar and Wild Horses (a truly sad fucking song- dig Charlie and his coke :D). Mick Jagger, despite his odd southern accent and lack of technicality, is deinitely one of the greatest rock singers, and probably the greatest frontman. No one was doing that sort of weird shit when he began; well, no-one white and male at least, and I think his flamboyance was culturally important. I think the Stones are a great live band, hence me mainly linking to live versions of their tunes. I was lucky enough to see them in 1995 in Melbourne, though I wasn't a huge fan at that point and almost fell asleep. They opened with Satisfaction; one of the most exciting sounds one can hear. But ultimately, I just don't think their songs and consistency can rival that of The Beatles, and I'll fight any of ya's that say otherwise :p :X =D

TL;DR: The Beatles :D

I've included a poll to give our answers statistical significance, but please flesh out your responses with some kind of post explaining your choice. I'm totally happy for people to link to vids, but lets keep it to embedded links or NSFW style, for ease of use and to reduce the tedium of infinite youtube threads. So video's without a message or directly linked will (maybe) be vanished...

Have at it guys- an objective fact is being born right fucking here %):D<3

edit: This is a public poll, so you cannot hide the truth ;) I was going to make it multi-choice, but that would have been pointless...
 
Last edited:
I literally grew up with the Beatles. I was a little kid when the first album hit the States and immediately changed music and boys' haircuts in one fell swoop. I was never a screaming teenybopper fainting at their appearances but I swooned over Paul as a little girl and then over George and finally John as a teen and could sing every song as soon as I got hold of the album.. John's songwriting is still some of my favorite and to me Imagine is a hymn. I love the Stones music as well, but when the Beatles came out with Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band I practically wore that record out. Magical Mystery Tour and the iconic White Album I had to wait for as we were living in Africa and I had to wait for someone to buy them in the UK and bring them back. Again, pretty sure I wore them out. Right now, writing all this out songs are floating through my head, Eleanor Rigby, Fool on a Hill, Strawberry Fields. Someday when I have Alzheimers and someone is trying to reach me after I have stopped responding to speech by using music, tell them Beatles, Beatles and more Beatles.:)
 
When I was a kid I would have gone with The Beatles. I'd see the campy early 80's crap that Mick Jagger churned out and there was no comparison to Sgt Peppers or Revolver. I could even forgive Say say, say with Michael Jackson (actually, that is probably my favourite post Beatles song of any one).

As I grew older though I delved deeper into the late 60's/ early 70's Rolling Stones and today I'd say the Rolling Stones in a heart beat. My musical influences are more Blues and rock driven, and apart from George Harrisons occasional contributions, I find The Beatles too beige. Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St are still on high rotation on my ipod, while only from time to time do I really feel in the mood for The Beatles. Perhaps it is over saturation, but I just really prefer the heavier rock of Keith and co. Gimme Shelter is my favourite intro of all time while I have really fond memories of Paint it Black, Tumbling Dice and Can't you hear me knocking
 
For some reason, it seems the "cool" answer to this timeless question is always The Stones. I don't get it, personally. They are/were a great band, without question, but I wonder to myself how much of this "coolness" factor is based on shtick and how much is based on the music itself. In any event, the answer to me is obvious. The Beatles were not only pioneers who were so far ahead of their time that the world of rock n roll is still trying to catch up, but each and every member of the band was a brilliant songwriter on their own (yes, even Ringo). They combined and balanced melody, harmony, savagery and innovative structure that The Stones never even came close to achieving.

To be fair, there is also a mystique surrounding the fab four. The difference being - the music entirely eclipses the shtick. I can't exactly say the same about The Stones.
 
The Beatles started the British Invasion. A lot of bands came out around the same time, but the Beatles had the attitude, the magic, the balance between its members and were ahead of their time.
 
Bardeaux said:
For some reason, it seems the "cool" answer to this timeless question is always The Stones.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about that. We had a poll contest a few years ago deciding who was the greatest band. Guess who won?

The Beatles have a lot of influence on today's bands. They were the first "indie" band.
 
Interesting responses thus far. I found herbavore's to be intriguing, I like to get that perspective on these bands. My mother, born 1950, got to see (literally, only see) The Beatles when they played in Melbourne in 1964. I've aways envied her that slice of history. :) She only remembers it as terrifying and inaudible. Still, the gig of a lifetime.

I've wondered at what point in history the Beatles would have reformed had John stayed alive. I wonder if they would have diluted their legacy or added to it... I thought Real Love was a decent tune, not so much Free as A Bird. Terrible lyrics really.

One Thousand Words said:
When I was a kid I would have gone with The Beatles. I'd see the campy early 80's crap that Mick Jagger churned out and there was no comparison to Sgt Peppers or Revolver. I could even forgive Say say, say with Michael Jackson (actually, that is probably my favourite post Beatles song of any one).

As I grew older though I delved deeper into the late 60's/ early 70's Rolling Stones and today I'd say the Rolling Stones in a heart beat. My musical influences are more Blues and rock driven, and apart from George Harrisons occasional contributions, I find The Beatles too beige. Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St are still on high rotation on my ipod, while only from time to time do I really feel in the mood for The Beatles. Perhaps it is over saturation, but I just really prefer the heavier rock of Keith and co. Gimme Shelter is my favourite intro of all time while I have really fond memories of Paint it Black, Tumbling Dice and Can't you hear me knocking
Click to expand...

Forgot about Gimme Shelter. Fucking awesome intro- spine chilling. I take it you have watched its namesake documentary? Great watch indeed. :)

That's the thing though; the Stones had a brilliant era, but for the majority of their career, they've released mediocre music. I don't care though; Paint it Black makes up for ten Dirty Works. I just don't know if primary colour outfits ever looked especially good:

MI0001656216.jpg
 
I have to say the beatles were head and shoulders above the stones. Look at the song writing abilities of all the beatles compared to the stones. Even ringo wrote some good tunes. Then look at george and his songs has anyone ever wrote a better love song than something i dont think so. maybe i am slightly biased though as the beatles to me are only second to frank zappa when it comes to music.
 
The Rolling Stones. I can feel my mother shaking her fist at me, but Bust is right. The Beatles are 'beige'. Safe. Is there any sort of inkling that the Beatles are sexual creatures? Any sort of attempt at seduction, at rage? Cruelty? Male salt, sweat, hunger? The Beatles don't eat or poop. I don't wanna even say it but - The Beatles never gave a shit about Muscle Shoals. There are some Beatles songs I absolutely adore, but The Beatles live in my memories of kids who killed themselves who loved them and my mother, which doesn't really make them exciting/vital to me now.

gimme shelter is absolutely one of the most incredible opening tracks to an album ever.
 
I love the Beatles, and definitely prefer them to the Stones. There are some great Stones songs though, of course, but man, as I've aged, I've grown to incresaingly appreciate the Beatles, and tire quickly of the Stones.
 
Bump.

"Don't forget about me".
 
Tough question.

They are both fucking pinnacle IMhO.

But in the end.. the beatles slap the stones around like a red headed step child.
 
The Beatles were far from 'safe' in their time. Put into the context of 1960s postwar British culture they changed everything.
I think that the the Rolling Stones longevity has damaged their legacy - the beatles werent around for too long - but they were both great bands.
 
The Stones made many, many good songs in their prime, but The Beatles really defined the album as a coherent musical statement. The Stones had some great albums, too (Let It Bleed being my personal favorite), but they didn't really do concept albums like The Beatles. I also feel that The Beatles were better at using the studio as an instrument.
 
The Beatles even made a decent film or two. Magical Mystery Tour is pretty lousy, but their earlier efforts (much like their earlier records IMO) are pretty great.
Granted, Gimme Shelter is entertaining (and disturbing) - but the Stones never released their best documentary, Cocksucker Blues which is highly recommended if you can track it down online or source a bootleg copy. Same goes for The Great Rock'n'Roll Circus which remained in the vaults for decades.
The Stones at their best were great, but i think a lot of their output has been patchy. The Beatles...far less so. I like their earlier stuff the best though; when the stones were still playing blues covers.
 
I'd pick the Beatles without hesitation <3

That's not to say I have no appreciation of the Stones - but when comparing their album content, I find there is so much 'filler' on the Stones records. They really don't match the Beatles in terms of sheer volume of great songs written.

Stones are a great band with great energy and some great songs - but they just don't cut the mustard when it comes to creativity.

People too easily get sucked into the whole aesthetics of the bands and what they represented when picking a favourite - it's all about the music, man %)

Even if I were to ignore the music, I'll take the Beatles bubblegum mop tops, over Mick Jagger's predatory squirrel-ish sex moves 8(
 
I know the Beatles invented everything or woteva, but I feel the Stones' music has aged better and is more diverse - though obviously their recording for so many decades played a part in that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top