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 2 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
Cymruambyth 
|
No question - the Beatles rule, okay? Better musicians, and in the latter six/seven years much better songwriters. I don't know if John actually said that the Stones copied the Beatles, but it is true. And I'll lay dollars to doughnuts that more people know more Beatles' lyrics than Stones' lyrics. Reply #21. Sep 01 10, 1:33 PM |
Schoonie101
|
I like listening to the Stones more but I respect the Beatles more for their songwriting and talent. Reply #22. Sep 02 10, 1:11 AM |
Saberg
|
I have just recently visited the "Cavern" where the Beatles started out. Was amazing. I like both but if I really had to choose I would say the Beatles but I do like both though. Reply #23. Sep 02 10, 2:12 PM |
Anton
|
The Beatles may be the biggest rock band of all time, but they never had Keef. Mmkay? Reply #24. Sep 02 10, 2:38 PM |
irishrusty
|
I love both bands. Too bad the Beatles were not around long enough for most of us to see them live. I have been to three Stones concerts they rocked. But I think the Beatles are by far the best band of all time. They came along and changed music forever. Yes and the Kinks Ray Davies is still going strong. Reply #25. Sep 02 10, 3:32 PM |
Greatguggly
|
A band that doesn't tour is half a band and the Beatles quit in '66. Live performances are the best measure of a band IMO and the Beatles don't even come close. Never did. Examples of the Stones copying the Beatles would be interesting and fun to pick apart. Most people who know rock and roll would rate Keith Richards a better guitarist than good ol George and Lennon couldn't play lead at all. Ringo doesn't measure up to Charlie Watts on drums either. Lyrically,...ok I'll give the Beatles the edge there but none of them can or ever could put on a show like Jagger in his prime. McCartney was without a doubt the best overall musician in either band but he's so plastic and he really ain't rock and roll. Too schmaltzy. Having said all that, the Beatles were a great band and really deserve a category all their own. There's no doubt that the Stones looked up to them in the early days. Reply #26. Sep 02 10, 5:16 PM |
johnnycat777
|
Great thread! In terms of longevity, the sheer number of concerts and tours they have played, and most importantly, their ability to make new and good music for 5 decades, the Rolling Stones are second to none and they have lived up to their name. On the other hand, the Beatles massive volume of music and number 1 hits all in less than one decade is astounding. Their public popularity overall is something the Stones could only dream of and they blow away the Stones in total worldwide album sales. My vote is hands down for The Beatles. Reply #27. Sep 02 10, 5:50 PM |
lesley153
|
I can listen to the (Rolling) Stones for a while, but I can listen to the Beatles for a lot longer. There were simply more varied and more interesting, possibly because they copied a lot of different styles, from American girl groups to music hall, and definitely because of George Martin's genius at arranging. "Ringo doesn't measure up to Charlie Watts on drums either." Ringo doesn't measure up to anyone. "Best drummer in the world? He isn't even the best drummer in the Beatles." I will never understand why he was invited to join the group, or why he was persuaded to come back when he walked out. Perhaps because he made the other three look good. Reply #28. Sep 02 10, 6:35 PM |
| Saberg
|
Saw the Rolling Stones live in concert a few years back, they were fantastic. Hats off to them that they have been going for so long. Reply #29. Sep 03 10, 1:03 PM |
notaratface
|
Greatguggly, McCartney ain't rock and roll, you say?...Well, let's see, there's his 'I Saw Her Standing There', not rock and roll? How about 'Get Back', 'Helter Skelter', 'I'm Down', 'Back in the USSR', 'Why Don't We Do It In the Road', 'Maybe I'm Amazed', 'Monkberry Moon Delight', 'Oh Woman, Oh Why', 'Too Many People', 'Hi Hi Hi', 'Give Ireland Back to the Irish', 'Jet', 'Call Me Back Again', 'So Glad To See You' and about 125 others you've never heard of, not rock and roll enough, too plastic, what does that mean anyway?...You also probably think the Kinks only ever did 'You Really Got Me' and 'Lola', but I digress... Reply #30. Sep 03 10, 9:43 PM |
boxjaw
|
Harrison, McCartney and Lennon all played a variety of instruments. In my opinion much better than any of the Stones could. Starr and Watts are average. Reply #31. Sep 05 10, 2:19 AM |
| Cymruambyth
|
Did you know that Mick learned that strut of his from none other than the wonderful Tina Turner? If you watch early video of the Beatles and the Stones, you'd realize that the Beatles were a good deal more animated than the Stones, who were positively wooden when they started out. The Beatles appealed to both sexes, all age groups. The Stones mostly appeal to males. Reply #32. Sep 05 10, 2:56 AM |
| lesley153
|
Here's a question and answer from wiki.answers.com: Q "Why did the Beatles stop touring?" A "They were frustrated with not being able to hear themselves onstage, due to the lack of amplifier power at the time, and the incessant screaming of their fans at shows. They also grew tired of life on the road, and not being able to play the songs they liked. (Their early stage show was an hour and more of their songs and others; later they were expected to stick to twenty minutes of their own hits.) "During their last tour, the airplane they traveled in was shot at as they landed in Texas, and a prankster threw a firecracker at the stage during their Memphis show; everyone thought at first they heard a gunshot. The Beatles had had enough. They had toured so much that they got burned out; concerts became dangerous as the Beatles' message became more controversial and the Beatles received death threats - 1966 was the year that John Lennon's comments "the Beatles are bigger than Jesus" was taken out of context and according to John Lennon, "upset the very Christian KKK". In the Philippines they unintentionally offended Imelda Marcos and many Filipino citizens took this as an excuse to rob, harass and threaten death to the Beatles. They stopped touring soon after that." Reply #33. Sep 05 10, 8:22 AM |
| Greatguggly
|
I ticked off a McCartney fan. Listen, I respect the guy a lot. I said he was a great musician. I just think he prefers to be a singer of silly love songs. Actually I was a huge Beatles fan from, oh I'd say...the womb until about ten when I finally realized there was other good music. I also loved Wings, so yep...I've heard of every song you mentioned. What I meant by plastic is that he seems phony when he tries to rock, doesn't seem genuine. Seems like he'd rather be singing something else. Maybe it's me. To me, rock and roll is, or should be, a very accessible form of music. Some grubby kid can pick up a guitar and bash away at it until it sounds good enough. Rock music isn't for Maestros, that's all I'm saying. And since when does selling more records or having more people aware of your music make you a better band than someone else? Maybe it just means you have a better hype machine. Actually, "Sunny Afternoon" is my favorite Kinks song. That or "Destroyer". Reply #34. Sep 15 10, 10:01 AM |
| notaratface
|
I take back what I said about you and the Kinks, Greatguggly, that was uncalled for, and thank you for your contribution to the solo Beatles thread. Better to be replied to, than to be ignored... Reply #35. Sep 15 10, 11:35 AM |
| Greatguggly
|
No harm done, notaratface. Reply #36. Sep 15 10, 12:07 PM |
| boxjaw
|
I have a few good friends that have debated this issue over the years on and off and in a tongue in cheek kind of way, as well as some being quite adamant on their views, one way or the other. I will have to say that if I was at a party that only had Stones songs playing, I would be in a closet with a very thin door. I'm sure there are others that would go the other way. I applaud all of you who don't have to hide behind closet doors and have come out. Does that make me bi? Reply #37. May 30 11, 10:12 AM |
| Greatguggly
|
I gotta say, that went over my head like an F4 Phantom. Reply #38. May 30 11, 2:43 PM |
| boxjaw
|
I'm too fast for ya gg. Although I'm glad that the plane that flew over you and left you wondering was the best of the sixties. Reply #39. May 31 11, 7:00 AM |
HannahConner88
|
Though not a die hard fan of either, I choose the Beatles because they have better songs, and they all were talented enough to carry solo careers. I do not really like the Rolling Stones at all, I think they're sleazy. Reply #40. May 31 11, 7:05 AM |
66 replies. On page 2 of 4 pages. 1 2 3 4
Legal / Conditions of Use
|
|
: