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%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by davie18)
    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?
    It all comes under the umbrella of pop rock, they dabbled in psychedelia, but didn't really stray too far away from pop rock. The Stones have a more expansive back catalogue, going into psychedelia, disco, blues, rock and roll, etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Let's face it - this argument has been raging for nearly 50 years so it's probably not going to get resolved on TSR
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MC armani)
    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".
    Well your opinion is hardly unbiased. You're dismissing any argument for The Beatles as irrelevant, whilst using similar examples to try and prove you're right about the Stones. Both bands inspired future bands in profound ways, there's no denying that of either band (although you seem to be trying your best to prove otherwise).
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The Beatles, all day long.

    However, I did see The Rolling Stones a few years ago and they've definitely still got it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Neither

    Give me Simon and Garfunkel any day...better songs, better singers, better hair...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The Beatles are more influential.

    Stones are better and music is more timeless.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazyBeautiful)
    Neither

    Give me Simon and Garfunkel any day...better songs, better singers, better hair...
    That afro is certainly, umm, unique...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Dammit! I accidentally voted for the Rolling Stones. Not fond of them at all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    gotta be beatles without a doubt
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sonny_J_D)
    That afro is certainly, umm, unique...
    He rocked that jewfro for many years (perhaps to this very day, though I imagine not). Unique voice (one of the reasons S&G outclass The Beatles and The Stones, IMO), unique hair :yes:

    Paul always seemed to have monk-ish type hair trapped in a 60s or 70s style. Worked much better as a prop moustache:

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Whoever thinks it's an "easy" decision is a moron.

    Besides, it's like asking me what do I prefer; tits or ass///
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Whoever thinks it's an "easy" decision is a moron.

    Besides, it's like asking me what do I prefer; tits or ass///
    charming....:K:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazyBeautiful)
    charming....:K:
    Well I guess you could interchange it with tea and coffee...!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    Well I guess you could interchange it with tea and coffee...!
    Liking coffee as much as tea?! Now that's perverse
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CrazyBeautiful)
    Liking coffee as much as tea?! Now that's perverse
    It's pretty much the same as the whole Stones vs Beatles "debate"; it depends entirely on circumstance, mood and setting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by channy)
    It's pretty much the same as the whole Stones vs Beatles "debate"; it depends entirely on circumstance, mood and setting.
    Amen!
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    I don't just think The Beatles are better than the The Stones, I think they're the greatest band of all time.

    The Rolling Stones offered a far harder edged, grittier type of music, whereas The Beatles we're softer and more 'gentle'; if you thinks this makes them worse, you're a narrow minded moron.

    Somebody who has a wide appreciation for music will be whipped into a beer soaked ecstacy by the thumping 'Honky Tonk Women' or 'Brown Sugar' one day, and will kick back on and listen to the masterful, but more mellow Rubber Soul on another. The Rolling Stones are an absolutely superb band and no other rock band for the last 30 years have even come close to the magic they recorded in the sixties and seventies. Listen to 'Let it Bleed' from the album of the same name and tell me you're not thrilled by the arse-shaking debauchery of the thing. Listen to 'Beast of Burden' and tell me you don't just wanna crank your speakers up to eleven and air-guitar your *******s off, or sing your heart out to 'Angie'. They're brilliant.

    But, in my estimation, there's no way they can match The Beatles, a band which was almost superhuman in their consistently seminal output. From the release of 'Love Me Do' and Please Please Me, they seemed to produce almost nothing but quality. They simply wrote more great songs than any other band in history - most other groups could probably attain massive worldwide success if they came up with less than a fifth of the songs that The Beatles wrote. A Hard Day's Night, Help!, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, and Abbey Road are nigh on flawless albums. They show that Lennon and McCartney truly were exceptionally talanted song-writers and melodists and I'm afraid that Jagger and Richards simply cannot compete. Songs like 'Help!', 'Strawberry Fields Forever', 'In My Life', The Abbey Road Medly, and 'Yesterday', amongst buckets of others, really are at the pinnacle of popular art.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    beatles > stones.

    I do have the bias of having the whole beatles discography and only listening to a stones "greatest hits" collection though. Paint it black aside thoroughly unimpressed. Sgt peppers and abbey road though...amazing
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The Beatles. Though I also love The Rolling Stones. Listening to Gimme Shelter right now; what a tune.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not a massive fan of The Beatles, but they are (for my money) the best band of all time. You don't need to like them, to appreciate what impact they made.

    Talking about best bands of all time...a close second would be The Rolling Stones.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.