the beatles vs The rolling stones

[Cherry]

I also think these are 2 bands you can not compare.
They are 2 totally different styles of music.

I love both, but I can not compare Keith Richards to John Lennon.. it just doesn't work.

[arianna]

As others have mentioned, there is nothing common to compare the two, so the question doesn't work.

However, my personal preference is The Beatles by far! I like a few of the Stones' songs, but for the most part, I can't get into them. With The Beatles, it's just the opposite. I don't think I could ever get sick of their music. There are, of course, a handful of acclaimed Beatles' songs that just don't do it for me (it's like that with every band), but in general, I love them.

In fact, I am listening to "If I Fell" right now.

[Izabella]

Stones...Although the Beatles are good too but I prefer the Stones

[sparky]

I also have to go with the Beatles although both the Beat;es and the Stones have a lot to answer for I think it was them that killed good old Rock and Roll on a musical front the Beatles are way out in front just listen to their Sgt Pepper Album some of the melodies and chord configurations are very complex although easier on the guitar that on keyboards still both bands are great

[JohnM]

Beatles for me.

Unless I'm burning rubber in my car, when it's the Stones!!

[SecondBass]

The time honoured debate. There are attributes on both sides. The Stones were more raunchy and bluesy, the Beatles were more diverse and probably better song-writers. On the down-side Paul McCartney is irritating beyond belief and Keith Richards has been a zombie since 1966.

So, on balance I'm choosing the Kinks.

[Poddygood]

I like your cunning SecondBass. Much as I'm a long time Beatles AND Stones fan (I remember the Stones back from when I saw them at the Royal Albert Hall in November 1963..), I often feel that a choice between the real true greats should be wider. There were some better equals out there who get sadly overlooked in comparative terms.. The Kinks, The Who, The Move......

[SecondBass]

Yeah - the Move. Can't really imagine either the Stones or Beatles doing Brontosaurus.

Welcome to the boards Poddygood - I think you can have some fun around here. Anybody that rates the Move has my backing.

[traveller]

I found myself opting for one and then the other as I read through this thread. Its not that I can't make my mind up but that they are both good in their own way. Basically I agree with those who say they can't be compared but if I had to choose one, then it would be the Stones. They have a raw edge that the Beatles don't.

[Maney]

The beatles don't even come close! Its the stones all the way for me, personally I can't stand the beatles, but the stones, well I could listen to them all day every day.

[Museo]

What a tricky choice to make as both bands have contributed so much to the music scene.

Personally I would have to say the Beatles especially in their later period when George Harrison became more confident about writing and penned such hits as ""Something" and "Here comes the sun". Perhaps I have hippy tendencies

[SecondBass]

OK, if I really have to choose I would probably go for the Beatles, even though it is against my louder tendencies. The variety of songs coming from Lennon, McCartney, and as Museo rightly points out, Harrison, really give it to them.

[M.T. STYLE]

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

Lol, Beatles are probably the most diverse(music) musician ever.

Just listen to:
She loves you
Tomorow never knows
a day in the life
strawberry fields forever
helter skelter
blackbird
birthday
revolution 9
golden slumber/carry that weight/the end
across the universe
let it be

then try to compare

[M.T. STYLE]

Beatles(1962-70)
20 US No.1 SINGLES
17 UK No.1 SINGLES
19 US No.1 ALBUMS
15 UK No.1 ALBUMS


Rolling Stones (1963-Present)
8 US No.1 SINGLES
8 UK No.1 SINGLES
9 US No.1 ALBUMS
10 UK No.1 ALBUMS

[M.T. STYLE]

Beat That!