The Beatles VS. The Rolling stones

[Christmas_Ape]

Maybe the sax solo will be on Saxophone Hero?

 

[YMIHERE]

Here's the long version of Can't You Hear Me Knocking

It's been one of my favorites and is not as well known as other Stone songs.

 

[McNab]

Stones.

 

[plucap]

Both of them feel so ancient and dull today. And the whole myth around the Beatles is so ridiculous. I could name at least a dozen bands more important to rock than them. Rolling Stones are one of them.

 

[thorsif]

I like them both but maybe the Rolling Stones just edge it for me

 

[LordVader66]

I don't really like comparing these two bands. Both bands have totally different styles of music. The Stones sounded a bit like the Beatles when they first started, but it didn't take long for that 60's pop sound to disappear. I love both bands however the Beatles are my favorite. I love the later Beatles more than their early stuff. Post Rubber Soul. It all depends on what type of mood I am in that dictates what kind of music I listen to. If I had to pick between the two it would be the Beatles not taking anything away from the Stones.

 

[Friday on my mind]

Both of them feel so ancient and dull today. And the whole myth around the Beatles is so ridiculous. I could name at least a dozen bands more important to rock than them. Rolling Stones are one of them.

The being dull and ancient is probably a generational thing IMO.I find most of the 60s stuff much more hip and edgey than almost anything made today.I also do not think the Beatles legacy is a myth I think even folks who lived through that time and are bigger fans of the Stones would admit that without The Beatles there probably would have been no Stones at least not in the USA.And has been pointed out it was the Beatles who led the way with bands like the Stones following and taking their stylistic Q's from them not the other way round.As Mr.P pointed out in his post Stones albums like "Their Satanic Majesties Request" was very much following the style set by "Sgt.Peppers".

 

[Konishi]

Both of them are genial and have bring wonderful song to the world...i like them both...rock and roll, yeah

 

[L3ggy]

The Stones does it for me, but The Beatles are a great band.

 

[member006]

While I do appreciate what the Beatles brought to the history of music. I don't care for them that much or many from the 'British Invasion" era in music history. So I have to go with the Stones, different than most from the BI and timeless, about three generations have hung in there with them over time.

LL

 

[slowhand]

I like them both the same both bands are great. :thumbsup:

 

[bigbadbrody]

neither, I cant stand either band

 

[dick van cock]

The being dull and ancient is probably a generational thing IMO.I find most of the 60s stuff much more hip and edgey than almost anything made today.

Sixties music = original. The output of (e.g.) the Velvet Underground or Cream was minimal, yet both had more style and substance than anything produced today.

today's music: generic & formulaic. Boring!


(I voted for the Beatles)

 

[bodie54]

I can remember how it was even more likely a fight would break out among some of my older brothers age group over any of the british bands vs lets say "The 4 Seasons" who were seen as one of the all american "greaser" type groups.

LOL I wonder if they look back and see the irony in fighting to defend the manhood of a guy who sang like he was castrated :1orglaugh

 

[plucap]

Sixties music = original. The output of (e.g.) the Velvet Underground or Cream was minimal, yet both had more style and substance than anything produced today.

today's music: generic & formulaic. Boring!

That's just generalizing too much. This particular decade hasn't been very nice I agree, much thanks to the countless of indie-bands. But the 70's and 90's brought a lot of good stuff.

And I'm not saying the Beatles is a bad band. But even from an objective stand point I can't deny the fact that the 1960-pop they played is aged. I don't think there's no depth to it and the songs are too jaunty to be called rock. The Beatles produced a lot of good albums (Sgt Pepper's being one of them) in their latter days but the earlier recordings are terribly generic and predictable.

Beatles were influential during the British invasion when every band copied their style. And they're certainly one of the biggest bands ever. But that doesn't make up for the fact that the Rolling Stones or the Who played much more interesting music. That's just my 2 cents but I try my best not to be a music elitist

 

[MAR603]

The Rolling Stones Are The Better Rock Band, But The Beatles Were More Influential. The Fact That They All Those Fantastic Albums In Six Short Years Is The Amazing Fact.

 

[tartanterrier]

The Stones are miles better

Here's why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkD6bjia0bY&feature=related

 

[L3ggy]

Here's why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkD6bjia0bY&feature=related

Good one.

 

[SBTNW]

The Stones. i hate the Beatles. have some respect for them, but hate'em.

 

[Gugi22]

I voted for Beatles,but I actually hate both of them!