Beatles vs Stones

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Beatles vs Stones

    Music's own version of Sox/Yanks. Let's have at it.

    FYI - The Beatles wore pinstripes!
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    I'd say the Beatles, although my favorite Stones material is from the '60s and early '70s.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from softwareDevMusician. Show softwareDevMusician's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
    I'd say the Beatles, although my favorite Stones material is from the '60s and early '70s.
    Posted by royf19


    I vote Beatles. I can't really think of a Beatles tune I don't like, and so, so many that I love. I agree that Stones' best stuff was '60s - '70s. After Some Girls came out, I started losing interest. I'd be interested in hearing their upcoming remix of Exile, that and Sticky Fingers were the two I listened to most.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    65-69 (Beatles) No one has matched that yet. What they did in those 5 years is still unmatched in the history of popular music, especially RnR.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    I have to go with the Pinstripes here. The Beatles, by far. Like the previous poster,(software) said, I am yet to find a single Beatles Song I don't like, and some such as Norwegian Wood, that are just amazing, and eternal.

    Outside of Sticky Fingers, not much of a Stones fan...

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from losmediasrojas. Show losmediasrojas's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Beatles vs Stones:
    Music's own version of Sox/Yanks. Let's have at it. FYI - The Beatles wore pinstripes!
    Posted by jesseyeric


    But they played at Shea.

    Figured I'd join some of my friends over on this board, even the ones that wear pinstripes.  For my baseball friends, does anybody know what happened to our beloved chatboard?  Do you any idea when and if it will be up again?  These are my prowling hours and I'm not getting my fix.

    By the way, it is, and always has been, the Beatles for me.  I think this is one of those things where you're either one or the other like Red Sox/Yankees, Shiite/Sunni, Democrat/Republican, etc.  I listened to Hard Day's Night as a prepubescent and wore it out.  My older sister bought me Sgt. Pepper's for my 11th birthday and I could never get enough from that point on. 

    Still like the Stones, but it's more like than love.  My favorite Stones' song is Wild Horses. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    Welcome to music forum LMR. We are trying to build it up some. Lizard breath is leading the way.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    There is one Beatles song that I can live without, Mr. Moonlight.

    But there are a couple of dozen Stones songs that I can say the same about.

    This is an argument with no "right" answer. Like the Hendrix or Clapton discussions I am sure you've had.

    The Beatles were the best based on brilliance over a short span. The Stones have longevity on their side and have stood the test of time , rather than become fossils of '60's culture. The Stones are and have always been concert favorites, the Beatles quit touring and became studio wizards.

    Take your pick, you can't be wrong on this one.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    The Beatles were most definitely not pinstripers.

    Personally I'm a much bigger fan of the Beatles.  However if you were to confine the comparison to the 1964-1969 time frame, then the Stones were very worthy adversaries at that point.  I'm a particular fan of stuff like 'Paint It Black', 'Ruby Tuesday' and 'She's A Rainbow'.  I think when they lost Brian Jones some of the magic went with him.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Mattyhorn. Show Mattyhorn's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    Tough call, but I have to take the Stones, whom I've actually seen perform live (more than once) and are part of my living consciousness, while The Beatles were defunct before I was born.  I'm disregarding solo output entirely.

    Don't get me wrong; they don't get much better than these two.  But I also have a greater affinity for the blues than I do for early rock n' roll.  It's not quite as simple as choosing between the more pop-oriented Beatles or rock-oriented Stones, but that's part of it.  I'm a sucker for a good pop song, but I prefer to rock out if given the chance.

    Given my favorite albums of each: "Exile On Main Street" and "The White Album", I would choose the former 90% of the time.  On the musical spectrum, most bands can be traced back to one or the other, but seldom both.  As a point of order, I would argue that The Who comprise the hard rock branch of the same tree.

    Good topic...and worthy of continued debate.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from cavaliersfan. Show cavaliersfan's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

              I like them both very much. Two different styles. The Stones sang about some real "down in the dirt" nitty gritty subjects. Some of the melodies were early rough slammin' rock, others were like British hillbilly rockn' roll. The Beatles also sang about a lot of important subject matter. I once heard a Beatle say 'their early music was influenced by the vocals of Do Wopp harmony, the beat and strong guitar of rock-a-billy and some bubblegum melody'. Later their style varied greatly but they usually had that highly polished sound and arrangement. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
              I like them both very much. Two different styles. The Stones sang about some real "down in the dirt" nitty gritty subjects. Some of the melodies were early rough slammin' rock, others were like British hillbilly rockn' roll. The Beatles also sang about a lot of important subject matter. I once heard a Beatle say 'their early music was influenced by the vocals of Do Wopp harmony, the beat and strong guitar of rock-a-billy and some bubblegum melody'. Later their style varied greatly but they usually had that highly polished sound and arrangement. 
    Posted by cavaliersfan


    Welcome to our little club here cavsfan
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from CasinoMAn. Show CasinoMAn's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    a scene cut in Pulp fiction:
    in the booth at Jack Rabbit Slims,
    thurman asks travolta is he's and Elvis guy or a Beatles guy...

    the scene was cut because tarrantino thought after the movie,
    people would discuss that question, rather than talk about his movie.

    a good decision on his part...


    I love the Beatles - so many hits, so many different styles of songs,
    fashion styles, art, pop culture..not to mention hair styles,
    (yes I wear a bealte wig)..
    they had/have it all....

    We'd all probably have a crew cuts and plaid shirts on right now if it werent for them..
     

    the stones are good also, but they admit they we're just trying to be an R&B Rockn Roll band.

    the beatles were genius.......most of the time...



     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from p-mike. Show p-mike's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    It's purely a matter of taste, and while I think you can safely say that the Beatles may have utlimately been more innovative, while the Stones were more traditonal blues rockers, if I could only listen to one of these bands and had to give up the other completely, I would pick the Stones.




     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytf25. Show jaytf25's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    A tie. Beatles were a little more influential but the Stones lasted longer and were better in concert.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
    A tie. Beatles were a little more influential but the Stones lasted longer and were better in concert.
    Posted by jaytf25


    Have you actually seen the Beatles live Wink
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from jaytf25. Show jaytf25's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones : Have you actually seen the Beatles live
    Posted by jesseyeric

    No unfortunately. I was 12 when they broke up, but from "older folks" who saw them they didn't think they were as good in concert like the Stones. Plus the Beatles concerts were always drowned out by a lot of screaming. I wish I could have seen them. I did see Harrison in 74, and McCartney in 90 and 93 and Ringo in 89, but I never got to see John or the Plastic Ono Band. Off topic. Had tickets to the Monkeys at Boston Garden in July of 67. But then my mom changed her mine(I was just 10) She said it was too late for me to be up. Actually she never liked the friend I was going with or his mother. Do you know who opened up a lot of Monkeys concerts that summer???? Jimi Hendrix!!!! I don't know if he opened the Boston concert that summer and I don't think I want to know the answer. I love the Stones and the Beatles equally.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    Definitely the Beatles. Nobody can touch what they did in that period from "Rubber Soul" through "Abbey Road."

    The Stones had a terrific run with "Beggars Banquet," "Let It Bleed," "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Main Street." But they really haven't done a truly good album since, in my opinion. (Though I loved "Tattoo You" at the time.)
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones : No unfortunately. I was 12 when they broke up, but from "older folks" who saw them they didn't think they were as good in concert like the Stones. Plus the Beatles concerts were always drowned out by a lot of screaming. I wish I could have seen them. I did see Harrison in 74, and McCartney in 90 and 93 and Ringo in 89, but I never got to see John or the Plastic Ono Band. Off topic. Had tickets to the Monkeys at Boston Garden in July of 67. But then my mom changed her mine(I was just 10) She said it was too late for me to be up. Actually she never liked the friend I was going with or his mother. Do you know who opened up a lot of Monkeys concerts that summer???? Jimi Hendrix!!!! I don't know if he opened the Boston concert that summer and I don't think I want to know the answer. I love the Stones and the Beatles equally.
    Posted by jaytf25


    You should check out some vid clips of them before the onslaught of Beatlemania. It is said that no one could touch them live.

    The problem with Beatlemania is that no one including the Beatles could hear themselves when they were playing.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones : You should check out some vid clips of them before the onslaught of Beatlemania. It is said that no one could touch them live. The problem with Beatlemania is that no one including the Beatles could hear themselves when they were playing.
    Posted by jesseyeric


    I would have loved to have heard them play in Hamburg without all the screaming. I'll bet they were better than the Stones as a live act in 1965. The fact that there was so much screaming made it impossible for the true sound of the music to come across and undoubtedly the boys lost interest in live shows because the beauty of the music was lost among all the fanfare and media attention, the running to and from hotel lobbies , etc.

    The Stones didn't really gain the reputation of being a "great " live act until the 70's. With over 10 years of touring they were becoming very good at it. The fact that they were undisputed #1 with the Beatles out of the picture and also gaining new fans with a younger generation made this reality. The Stones also had the plus of a very charismatic, out spoken and well known frontman. 

    I dare say that if the Beatles had not broke up and continued to tour into the mid-70's they would have been sensational as a live act. 
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    First, a correction. Beatles vs. Stones is more like Celtics vs. Lakers, with Beatles (of course) as the Celtics. The Beatles, like the Celtics, are known for being great for what they accomplished together, like the great Celtic teams of the 50's through the 80's. Legendary talent combined with legendary teamwork resulting in  outstanding creativity. So of course, under these altered terms, you know that I favor the Beatles.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    ...or it could be like the Cowboys vs. the Redskins...
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from mrmojo1120. Show mrmojo1120's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    Tough call.These are the 2 true heavyweights of rock.Although I like both,my vote for favorite would go to the Stones.Although I absolutely hate the song Angie,tunes like Dead flowers,Monkey Man and Little T+A more than make up for it.I could sit down and listen to either band all day long and be happy about it.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from LloydDobler. Show LloydDobler's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    In Response to Re: Beatles vs Stones:
    First, a correction. Beatles vs. Stones is more like Celtics vs. Lakers, with Beatles (of course) as the Celtics. The Beatles, like the Celtics, are known for being great for what they accomplished together, like the great Celtic teams of the 50's through the 80's. Legendary talent combined with legendary teamwork resulting in  outstanding creativity. So of course, under these altered terms, you know that I favor the Beatles.
    Posted by devildavid


    I like this analogy far better.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Tcal2. Show Tcal2's posts

    Re: Beatles vs Stones

    Beatles
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share