Turn on thread page Beta

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones watch

  • View Poll Results: Stones vs Beatles
    The Rolling Stones
    21
    30.00%
    The Beatles
    49
    70.00%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davie18)
    I just think though another point to make about the beatles is that they have a wider range of sound from their songs than the stones do. You have the pop songs like I want to hold your hand, then you have stuff like let it be, or tomorrow never knows, or eleanor rigby, or and And I love her. Every one of the songs I mentioned has a completely different sound to it, and I just don't think you get that with the stones. The beatles were more innovative and just in my opinion wrote better songs, but as I've already said it would be pointless to argue over how good their songs were because it simply comes down to opinion.
    But unlike the stones, they also had the trash that made them sound like amateurs. Like All I Need Is Love and nearly all the ones ringo wrote.

    Then there's the fact that the Stones were miles better in live performance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a fan of most of The Beatles' earlier tracks, but from Revolver up to Abbey Road, their output was excellent and better than that of the Stones, imo.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Monkees
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSilentG)
    The Beatles, The Rolling Stones are brilliant, however The Beatles are on a whole different calibre of brilliance.
    How so?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Beatles
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only Beatles song that I really liked was hey Jude . The rest of there stuff was insepid tripe mixed with a little faux pychedellia that they learnt from there trips (pardon the pun) to India .People say the Beatles was head music that made you think .What a load of crap , if i wanted that I would read Keats and Dosteovsky. The Stones were about soul and feeling , they made you wanna move . Gimme shelter , Under my thumb , Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar .If music such as this cant get you off your feet you must be dead !( I liked John Lennon when he went solo though)
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Where is the Rebecca Black option?

    But seriously, the Beatles. I feel their approach to music as a whole is a lot more original and their lyrics more unique and intelligent, but still not try-hard-to-edgy (Something the Stones seem to ocasionally indulge in). The Beatles quit while they were ahead. Personally, most of my friends and aqquaintances know more Beatles songs than Stones songs. That's not to say that the Stones aren't great!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Beatles. Far more experimental in their later years, with 3 great songwriters. Fair enough, in their early years they were a product, but once they got the artistic freedom to do what they wanted they really pushed the limits for the time, showing the development of some genres that didn't even exist then. Using indian instruments for pop music (Within You Without You), alt. rock (I Am the Walrus, Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except For Me & My Monkey, Happiness Is A Warm Gun), and what is arguably the first ever heavy metal song (Helter Skelter).

    Rolling Stones were great, but they didn't have the same scope as the Beatles. The Stones did blues rock very well, but they weren't nearly as experimental.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Its kind of like comparing two types of women , say for instance Gwyneth Paltrow to Angelina Jolie . There both good looking however one is nice and cute and cuddly(The Beatles) while the other is sexy , hard edged , exciting and dangerous (the Stones). I dont need to tell you which one I would have the most fun with.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    But unlike the stones, they also had the trash that made them sound like amateurs. Like All I Need Is Love and nearly all the ones ringo wrote.

    Then there's the fact that the Stones were miles better in live performance.
    The stones have had some rubbish songs too.

    And I'd disagree that All you need is love was rubbish. They were asked by the BBC to write a song to be broadcast worldwide that would have a message easily recognised by everyone worldwide - I think John Lennon delivered with the said song perfectly.

    I'd agree all the ones that Ringo wrote were horrible, he was useless at songwriting.

    And stones "miles" better in live performance? You can only compare the stones performances from the 60s to the beatles, since it would be unfair to compare their performances of the 70s or later seeing as much better equipment became available which made it easier to play well live. In the 60s the equipment available meant that you couldn't even hear yourself play if you had 50,000 people screaming. I'd say if you compare them at the same period they're probably as good as each other live.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chuck)
    The only Beatles song that I really liked was hey Jude . The rest of there stuff was insepid tripe mixed with a little faux pychedellia that they learnt from there trips (pardon the pun) to India .People say the Beatles was head music that made you think .What a load of crap , if i wanted that I would read Keats and Dosteovsky. The Stones were about soul and feeling , they made you wanna move . Gimme shelter , Under my thumb , Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar .If music such as this cant get you off your feet you must be dead !( I liked John Lennon when he went solo though)
    This. But nobody else can see it unfortunately...

    (Original post by Chaofan88)
    Where is the Rebecca Black option?

    But seriously, the Beatles. I feel their approach to music as a whole is a lot more original and their lyrics more unique and intelligent, but still not try-hard-to-edgy (Something the Stones seem to ocasionally indulge in). The Beatles quit while they were ahead. Personally, most of my friends and aqquaintances know more Beatles songs than Stones songs. That's not to say that the Stones aren't great!
    The Beatles quit when their only good songwriter died. Don't make it out to be shrewd judgement on their part.

    (Original post by Svenjamin)
    Beatles. Far more experimental in their later years, with 3 great songwriters. Fair enough, in their early years they were a product, but once they got the artistic freedom to do what they wanted they really pushed the limits for the time, showing the development of some genres that didn't even exist then. Using indian instruments for pop music (Within You Without You), alt. rock (I Am the Walrus, Everybody's Got Something To Hide Except For Me & My Monkey, Happiness Is A Warm Gun), and what is arguably the first ever heavy metal song (Helter Skelter).

    Rolling Stones were great, but they didn't have the same scope as the Beatles. The Stones did blues rock very well, but they weren't nearly as experimental.
    Only one great songwriter compared to the The Stones' two.

    Every major rock band of the past 30 years - from Aerosmith and AC/DC to Guns and Roses - was derived from the Stones' template. The Rolling Stones were the top grossing act in the world in 1969, 1979, 1989, and 1999. The top-grossing act of 2007 - the Rolling Stones. They have delivered consistently and brilliantly for five decades and remain "The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    How so?
    The Beatles have inspired a number of different bands, spawned significantly more singles, whenever the term 'good bands' is mentioned The Beatles more often than not seems to appear on that list (it's subjective), and I personally prefer The Beatles in contrast with The Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones are very good mind you.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Stones
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheSilentG)
    The Beatles have inspired a number of different bands, spawned significantly more singles, whenever the term 'good bands' is mentioned The Beatles more often than not seems to appear on that list (it's subjective), and I personally prefer The Beatles in contrast with The Rolling Stones. The Rolling Stones are very good mind you.
    Not true. Read my post above.

    It's the Stones imperfections that make them rock legends. Their "loose" style that is often copied yet never surpassed. They are certainly a true Blues based Rock band yet have forayed into almost every musical genre you can think of. From Country to Jazz and so forth. Not so much during the Mick Taylor years, but definitely since Ron Wood came on the scene, they don't even have a true lead guitarist. Just the way Keith likes it. Woody and Keith are Masters of the weaving of the guitars. They have a Jazzman behind the drum kit. (Charlie holds his sticks like a Jazz drummer.) And Sir Mick, well, just try and keep him off the stage. Give him postage stamp sized stage or stadium sized, and he cannot help but work it. There was never anything that Bill couldn't do with a bass guitar either. Not that Darryl is a slouch either. Darryl came over from playing with the Legendary Jazz player Miles Davis. And the fated Brian? Without him, you have no Stones.

    The Beatles in comparison? Actually I think some of the Beatles music is very boring. The STONES will always be the driving force of music at that time. I've never been to a Beatles concert but I've seen clips of their concerts and it seems like they probably put you to sleep. I've been to a Stones concert and going to sleep is the last thing you want to do. I still think they are the best band of all time. The Beatles come in 3rd after The Who.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    The Beatles quit when their only good songwriter died. Don't make it out to be shrewd judgement on their part.
    What? :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davie18)
    What? :confused:
    That was the nail in the coffin. In reality they gave up even before that.

    In fact it was after the Shea Stadium show that The Beatles basically stopped rehearsing before their shows (just a quick warmup and that would be it). In fact there were times after 1965 that they would flub the words to songs (at one of their concerts they had to confer to figure out the opening verse to I'm Down, at a 1966 show on their German tour George introduced Yesterday as being from Beatles For Sale. They burned out in the sixties.

    How can people criticise the Stones for their longevity anyway??
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Beatles are better, but Stones are still great - I'd say this is the most popular view.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    That was the nail in the coffin. In reality they gave up even before that.
    That was the last nail in the coffin? What is "that"? I don't know what you're talking about
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Stones are by far the better band; they've the wider range in terms of different genres in their music. Beatles have some crackers, but to me they are sound relatively similar to one another. The Stones differences range from songs like Gimme Shelter to Happy, to Emotional Rescue and Miss You. It cannot be argued that Keith was the better guitarist out of the two bands and that Jagger is the more soulful and intelligent singer.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jcockerill1)
    Stones are by far the better band; they've the wider range in terms of different genres in their music. Beatles have some crackers, but to me they are sound relatively similar to one another. The Stones differences range from songs like Gimme Shelter to Happy, to Emotional Rescue and Miss You. It cannot be argued that Keith was the better guitarist out of the two bands and that Jagger is the more soulful and intelligent singer.
    You haven't heard many beatles songs have you?

    Tomorrow never knows
    Let it be
    And I love her
    Helter Skelter
    I want to hold your hand
    Within you without you
    Lady Madonna
    Back in the USSR

    I could go on with more...

    All of those songs sound completely different, in what way do all beatles songs sound the same?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

Articles:

TSR wiki music section

Quick link:

Unanswered music threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.