the beatles vs The rolling stones

pana

New member
i'm with the stones.

in terms of instrumental ability the stones lead by far. you can't compare keith richards' guitar abilities to those of harrisson. and vocally speaking...just look at what influence mick jagger's vocals and stage antics had on rock music.

I don't agree with the fact that the beatles were more diverse musically. the stones also have a lot of different songs, from satisfaction to 19'th nervous breakdown, to lady jane or ruby tuesday, they just didn't exagerrate with overly commercial pop songs like the beatles did. the beatles were masters at making catchy tunes that would please everyone, the stones were more rebellious, that's why I like them more.

but in my opinion the best rock band of the sixties has to be the Velvet Underground.
 

drummergirlamie

New member
Both bands were absolutely brilliant in that they adapted to the passing years and the erratic movement that has always been so commonplace in the world of commercial record sales, their sound (genre) being one of the more adversly effected. Yet both bands managed to remain honest in that they continued to sound genuinely artistic and often times quite cerebral. The comparison of these two ATG bands has always been a fine music debate subject but I've always voted for The Stones for a few reasons I guess most desire not to consider or deem insignificant. First, I'll point out The Beatles flew high n' mighty for the remainder of their existance (nearly 3 years from that point) on the impression they managed to deliver from Sgt. Pepper's. To this very day it's not exactly shocking to hear one praise it as the greatest album ever made. Ozzy Osbourne and other present-day successful musicians pay homage to this album and credit such as one of their first true sound inspirations influencing them to become part of a band and eventually involved in the industry. The Stones never produced an album like such that attracted people from a non-prior fanfair position by reasonable parallel. The Stones never experienced a quicksilver-like success in comparison. The Rolling Stones were just nice n' consistant. Second, let me make reference to the fact The Beatles were far more apt to use lyrical fillers. Far more so than the Stones, they would factor in words that would rhyme with the line before so to try n' make the song "catchy" and seemingly often tried to pass this off as something profound. This was seldom heard by comparison on Rolling Stones vinyl. Third, The Beatles stopped touring in 1966, less than 3 years after their arrival here in The States. If you were to ask any of those guys at the time or even the two remaining they'd tell yu that decision was reached in part so as to devote more time to the studio and enhance their creativity. I agree with this decision in light of the result it produced beit it did educe a special kinda lyrical genius never before heard from them. Coming off the road both improved their sound in that there was much more substance involved and also repaired a badly beaten Beatles morale stemming from extensive touring. The Stones by comparison continued to tour and again, throughout such time remained consistant in quality and while doing so wrestled with some rather taxing adversity such as the Brian Jones incident in July of 1969. And how can we forget about the tragedy in Altamont, CA later that year and just before Christmas when The Hells Angels, who were The Stones hired security, senslessly pushed their weight around which resulted in the death of one in attendance. All this trial and plenty more combined with excessive drug and alcohol abuse kinda serves to reinforce their musical greatness when you consider they still managed to produce, "Let It Bleed" in 69 which is arguably one of their better albums and considered a must own by most every true Stones fan. I'm gonna stop there for now, guys-for I could go on for hours upon hours with this one. But I warmly welcome any attempt at rebuttle from anyone on this site; All in friendly/joint effort at stimulation, of course. As mentioned, this particular music topic is a true debate classic and one I can easily get lost in. Thanks for starting this thread.
 
Last edited:

intet_at_tabe

Rear Admiral Appassionata (Ret.)
Later today, I will have my half cousin visiting me for the yearly Beatles night. We were both in to The Beatles from 1963. Actually, as boys we acted the Beatles from the movie "A Hard Days Night", the scene where the four of them are chased by thousands of screaming teenage girls around the streets of London or was it Liverpool?

I always remember this scenario with great pleasure, probably because it never happened for real.

We will listen to all the old Beatles songs, have fun and proberly sing along, like we used to do, while I´ll serve him a good steak, backed potatos, with various salads and an Italian Qianti wine.

He was the guy, who handed me my life long disease - My disorder of MUST/HAVE TO play the air drums.

Do any of you guys have such a night being adults now, remembering the GOOD old days with a friend from the time The Beatles came through?
 
Last edited:

teddy

Duckmeister
Thought I would put an end note to this as I grew up with these groups from the very beginning. They play totally different music and to comparae them does not work. They have certain things in common such as learning to play instruments at a fairly young age and most of them knowing other members of the group and even teaching each other to play, before any formal arrangements were made. But they played different music and generally attracted different fans. The Stones initially encouraged a wilder image with their clothes and driving R&B music whereas the Beatles were presented with a cleaner image. These images blured a little as time went on. Incidentally I love both groups and appreciate their music for what it is. Don't compare them, just enjoy the.
teddy
 

teddy

Duckmeister
Further to my previous post, the Beatles were not much good at R&B but excelled in other areas.

teddy
 

John Watt

Active member
teddy's typing what I'm thinking,
if you want to be historic and musically authentic about any Beatles-Rolling Stones comparisons.
The Beatles broke up as a band long before their as-a-band studio products dried up.
Any listen to American r'n'b songs covered by the Beatles reveals their skittle-band roots.
The Rolling Stones, by continuing as a live band, reached an r'n'b level with "Miss You".
It might have taken tumultuous events and deaths, but the Stones survived and thrived, kinda.
Playing rhythms that are new, compared to these bands in the sixties, puts the Stones ahead.
 

kasimir

New member
Beatles know look here .. Important for collectors ..!

I possess an original: The Beatles' Hottest Hits Label: Parlophone - 306 PMCs

I is very specific as there is only made ​​of the 3028stk ..
I'd like some help to price the ..?
I also have 40 original Rolling Stones. A total of 51 paragraphs ..
the first 1-8 are only a maximum of 5 times the game.
among other things, I have: "Through the Past Darkly (Big Hits Vol.2) - IT'S THE 8-edged - Plate Number: Esteréo skl 5019
and "sticky fingers" with the metal zipper on the cover. Plate Number: 59100
and Their Satanic Majesties Request (green label and 3d cover) Decca TXS 103 United Kingdom 1967
and many more.
both the Beatles and Rolling Stone are all for sale ..

Hope I can get a little help from you ..?
Thank you in advance ..

MVH Jimmi. K.C.
 

teddy

Duckmeister
I have the first Stones LP in vinyl. Unfortunately the cover is very battered but the music is still as good.

teddy
 

kasimir

New member
good the plate is intact. sorry whit the cover.. all mine is very good both to look at and hear too.. is gold fore you ears..
jimmi
 

John Watt

Active member
I just gotta say, there is a modern consideration for this topic decision.
The Rolling Stones are still performing as a band with original members,
but The Beatles haven't done that since 1970, and half are gone.

That's that.

Personally,
I see that old Stratocaster hanging like that.
Now I wouldn't swing it around like a bat.
In fact I'd be playing it like a real cool cat.
And I heard you're already where it's at.
 

teddy

Duckmeister
That is a very valid point John. But as far as the music they produced/still produce is concerned?

teddy
 

John Watt

Active member
Hmmm! You asked me a tough question.
I still play The Beatle's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" on acoustic, playing faster bass with chords and moving notes around,
but then most Beatle fans think of that as a George Harrison and Eric Clapton song.
I used to like "Hey Hey, Jing Jing, Get Offa My Cloud", by the Rolling Stones, in the sixties,
playing "Miss You" in a disco setting as the last Stones song I played.

As extra-ordinary rock bands, I liked Deep Purple better.
As super-natural rock bands, there was only Jimi Hendrix.

But then you're hearing from someone who couldn't tell the difference between
The Beatles, Chad and Jeremy, The Liverpool Kids, The Moptops, The Carnaby Boys,
Homer and Jethro, Jerry and the Pacemakers or the Dave Clark Five,
to name a few components of "The British Invasion".

You guys were too easy to conquer, that whole hearts and minds thing.
 
Top