Subject: Beatles or Stones
Posted by: Wildisthewind
Date: Aug 08 10
As there are so many Beatles threads around I thought I would pose the question.
As simple as that, The Rolling Stones or the Beatles, which do you prefer? There have been many discussions down the years on the subject, so let’s see if we can come up with a definitive answer based on the vast knowledge and understanding of music FT players have.
Apologies if this thread has been posted before, I’ve had a look, but no sign.
Windy.
Posted by: Wildisthewind
Date: Aug 08 10
As there are so many Beatles threads around I thought I would pose the question.
As simple as that, The Rolling Stones or the Beatles, which do you prefer? There have been many discussions down the years on the subject, so let’s see if we can come up with a definitive answer based on the vast knowledge and understanding of music FT players have.
Apologies if this thread has been posted before, I’ve had a look, but no sign.
Windy.
66 replies. On page 1 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
notaratface
|
The Kinks. Better than the Stones, and as good as the Beatles. Reply #1. Aug 08 10, 7:17 PM |
Dizart 
|
The Beatles Reply #2. Aug 09 10, 6:23 AM |
Aussiedrongo
|
The Beatles, hands down. I think it was John Lennon who said something along the lines of everything the Beatles did the Rolling Stones copied six months later. Reply #3. Aug 09 10, 6:29 AM |
spidersghost43
|
Beatles. I agree about the Kinks being a great band they are not better than the Beatles. Reply #4. Aug 09 10, 6:29 AM |
Heleena
|
Definitely The Beatles. Reply #5. Aug 09 10, 7:02 AM |
CrimsonKiss
|
No question the Stones, turned the blues into rock! Having said that, the Beatles turned silly pop songs into an art form. Put them both together and you have a sound covered by just about every band for the past forty years. Reply #6. Aug 09 10, 2:40 PM |
Shiningstar7
|
I like them both but The Beatles are classier than the Stones, better quality of music. Reply #7. Aug 09 10, 9:00 PM |
mjws1968
|
Both bands were excellent, but the Beatles' early more commercial works give the much more off the wall Stones the edge, although I prefer the Kinks, or even better the Small Faces as a band that encapsulates the Sixties for me personally. Reply #8. Aug 10 10, 5:44 AM |
| psb1969
|
The Stones, I like the early stuff the best. I also think the Animals are a better band than the Beatles. But that is only my humble opinion. Reply #9. Aug 10 10, 6:52 AM |
callie_ross
|
I love them both equally! They both have excellent songs & are/were enormously talented. Reply #10. Aug 16 10, 1:06 AM |
suntzu
|
The Beatles, though a young Keith Richards.... Reply #11. Aug 16 10, 4:07 AM |
asmaria
|
the beatles was the best for me because they make a good music Reply #12. Aug 16 10, 4:36 AM |
Emma058
|
Beatles over Stones anyday. Reply #13. Aug 16 10, 6:47 AM |
wsm22
|
Eight Days a Week it's always the Beatles. Reply #14. Aug 16 10, 3:02 PM |
rubytops
|
They just aren't comprable as their music is so different . The Stones are a great rock band still touring and going strong and Mick and Keith proven song writers. The Beatles progressed from pop songs to more meaningful and interesting and intricate music. Love both of them, but if I have to choose it will have to be The Beatles as my home town is Liverpool. Reply #15. Aug 18 10, 2:28 PM |
tom_1
|
The Beatles for sure. Much superior musicianship. Perhaps not the same showmanship or longevity, but they contributed much more to the music library. Tom Reply #16. Aug 18 10, 2:38 PM |
obviousfront
|
Beatles were better pop musicians The Stones rocked harder They'll both be enjoyed for generations Reply #17. Aug 18 10, 7:38 PM |
Greatguggly
|
No secret here. No one beats the Stones. I don't know about John Lennon supposedly saying the Stones copied them. The only time I think that might be true was after the Beatles put out Sgt. Peppers' and Jagger, against the wishes of his bandmates, insisted that the Stones do some psychedelic rock of their own. I do know that John Lennon wished the Beatles could have been a little edgier, looser and more connected to rock n roll...like the Stones. Reply #18. Aug 23 10, 1:27 PM |
klavierstueck
|
Stones forever! Reply #19. Aug 26 10, 8:33 PM |
| BRY2K
|
Undeniably THE BEATLES. I often cringe when I hear The Stones dubbed "best rock and roll band in the world". This was not true during their heyday in the mid 1960's and it is not true today. The Beatles set the standard for pop during their tenure and were at the vanguard of not only a new sound but a new era of pop/rock culture. The Stones have talent- no doubt about it, the gold records on the wall tell the story. However, I think that they have always existed in the shadow of The Fab Four. The Beatles, to their credit, became household names because there were no line-up changes. What you saw was what you got: McCartney, Lennon, Starr and Harrison. There was no "sometimes Mick Taylor", sometines "Bill Wyman" and sometimes "Brian Jones". The chief reason I believe that The Beatles reign supreme in this contest is that they new when to say when: 1963- 1970: over and out! Their legacy is intact because they did not choose to re-kindle the old magic by limping along into the 1970's as a shadow of their former selves. Reply #20. Sep 01 10, 10:57 AM |
66 replies. On page 1 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: