The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Discuss.

[Pirate Utopian]

Hmm.... I'd say The Stones I perfer a more bluesy darker sound.

[Gitfiddle Jim]

Hmm.... I'd say The Stones I perfer a more bluesy darker sound.

Yep, it's a tough one but due to my allegiance to the blues I have to agree with you.

I should've made this into a poll.

[Bazza]

The Stones made some great singles but none of their album match up to The Beatles 'Revolver' or 'Rubber Soul'. But then ''Sgt Peppers' is well over-rated.

[thejambo1]

have to be the early stones for me, the bluesy stuff they did was far better than the beatles.

[RedAnarchist]

I've not heard enough songs of either band, so I dunno.

[Wanted Man]

One of them made rock, the other wrote catchy ditties. The answer is obvious.

[Sickle of Justice]

beatles for their psychedelia and early metal-ish stuff, esp. tommorow never knows and helter skelter. over all tho, rolling stones were probably a better band. i'm not a big fan of either.

[Led Zeppelin]

Both are great, but I have to go with Rolling Stones.

[Hit The North]

The Beatles contained the best song-writing duo ever produced by British music. In the studio they really pushed the limits: Tomorrow Never Knows sounds like nothing before or since. Paul Mccartney is rated by many musicologists as one of the finest writers of melody ever. John Lennon was a courageous spokesman for the anti-war movement, turning protest into pop-art and playing situationist with his celebrity status. Arguably he was the most important cultural figure of the late 60s and early 70s. Comrades should check out the movie The US vs John Lennon. A good trailer can be found here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3834800056940638173&q=The+US+vs+John+lennon&total=870&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The Stones were a great blues band.

EDIT: Actually, the entire movie can be watched here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=777046699234389996

[Marsella]

The only blues I can find in the Rolling Stones is the fact that named themselves after a Muddy Waters song. :/

They are more of a mix between rock, blues and pop.

I find them pretty boring to be honest, same with the Beatles. Although I probably haven't listened to 'em enough, despite having the complete Rolling Stones collection.

[F9]

i would say beatles.i am most interested in their music than stones!

Fuserg9:star:

[spartan]

Rolling Stones definately.

[Holden Caulfield]

DEATH TO PAUL,
JOHN WILL NEVER DIE,

working class hero,

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

I would probably go choose the Beatles if you're talking more politically active song content but for a more rockish band I would definatly say the Stones

[YeOldeCommuniste]

I adore both, but I prefer the Beatles.

[Kami]

Beatles.

That John Lennon is dead, but Paul McCartney still alive disproves the existence of any but a malevolent god.

[Mujer Libre]

IMO the Beatles are the better band, and I do like them better. The Stones have some good sounds, but there are better blues-rock bands out there.

[Invader Zim]

I love both, but the Beatles are better, if only because rubberlips isn't as good a singer as Macca or Lennon; not that I hold that against him in a big way, Dylan has proven that you don't even need to be able to sing a note to be at the height of good taste.

[Random Precision]

It's the Stones for me, although I love the Beatles only very small amount less.

I've seen the Stones live three times- they have lost nothing since the sixties, despite being terrible sell-outs. :D

[Invader Zim]

It's the Stones for me, although I love the Beatles only very small amount less.

I've seen the Stones live three times- they have lost nothing since the sixties, despite being terrible sell-outs. :D

What they did to the Verve was unforgivable.

[YeOldeCommuniste]

I've seen the Stones live three times- they have lost nothing since the sixties, despite being terrible sell-outs. :D


You, my friend, are very lucky. I'd love to see them live.

[jossfritz]

Between the Stones and the Beatles? The WHO, of course.

[Pawn Power]

I've not heard enough songs of either band, so I dunno.

Well then... why even mention it?! :bored:

***

The correct answer is the Beatles. What a silly thread to begin with since the answer is so obvious.

[Malakangga]

The Rolling Beatles Stones. Fucking great!!!:cool:

[Mod-ist]

I say beatles, although i do like the stones a lot. It's mainly because beatles had better harmonics, catchier songs and john lennon.


The Rolling Beatles Stones. Fucking great!!!:cool:

Definatly

[Svante]

i like the Beatles becuase o f John Lenon. h e was good song writer.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

I've not heard enough songs of either band, so I dunno.


Do you live in a cave?:L

The Beatles are crap...The Stones are twice as good

[Plagueround]

The Beatles for sheer innovation in a rather short period of time. To say something like "The Beatles suck" is to dismiss the contribution they have made to every major genre today. Having said that, I love the Stones as well.

[RedAnarchist]

Do you live in a cave?:L

The Beatles are crap...The Stones are twice as good

No, I just don't listen to that much 70's/80's music.

[Bastable]

The Stones without a doubt!

[Kropotesta]

both are naff.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Between the Stones and the Beatles? The WHO, of course.

That's not a bad alternative at all.

Personally I find this "Beatles vs. Stones" thing to be a false dichotomy promoted by the idiotic media. Also, saying "the Beatles were pop and the Stones were blues" is pure reductionism, if not ignorance.