Beatles and Rolling Stones lovers: The Ultimate question Watch

Poll: Who are better?
The Beatles (22)
70.97%
Rolling Stones (8)
25.81%
Both are equal (1)
3.23%
mevidek
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
Who do you think are better?

I think the Beatles are much better, but what about you?
1
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
The Beatles are better. Abbey Road shows that The Beatles could really rock out as well as The Rolling Stones.

The Rolling Stones have had a few really great songs but the upper middle class confidence of Richards and Jagger has carried them through all these years. There are many British (and several American) bands that I would rather choose than their carefully contrived selves. They even pretended to be working class.
1
reply
therealOG
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
Rolling Stones. Their songs are awesome. The Beatles are a bit too fluffy for my liking.
2
reply
kalaghoda
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
The Beatles by far. Apart from the superior musical ability, they knew when to stop and broke up to pursue their own careers.
0
reply
python
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 7 years ago
#5
The Beatles. Everybody knows it.
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by therealOG)
Rolling Stones. Their songs are awesome. The Beatles are a bit too fluffy for my liking.
Yes they (especially McCartney) could be frequently annoyingly fluffy. But there is hard rock in these songs in particular:

I want you (she's so heavy) (primarily a Lennon song from 'Abbey Road'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34Zf1Q5hW8o

Oh Darling (primarily a McCartney song in a bit of a Lennon style from 'Abbey Road'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PZWGGkrMCk

Think for yourself (primarily a Harrison song from 'Rubber Soul'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzkhSJkx7GY

Taxman (primarily a Harrison song from 'Revolver'):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Maz9ddxEQnM

If you hate the fluffiness of The Beatles, it is safest to only get Abbey Road which everyone, Beatles fans or not, should get. Skip the Octopus's Garden track for your tastes. The harmonies in that album are , for once, really good too. Every other album of theirs (except the underrated Magical Mystery Tour) does have its disappointments.
0
reply
Gob Bluth
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 7 years ago
#7
Beatles are more influential, but with a dated sound. Stones are far better.
2
reply
Paul McCartney
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#8
Report 7 years ago
#8
Both are awesome, but The Beatles are way better
0
reply
IndigoRockGirl
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 7 years ago
#9
Beatles, no question : )
0
reply
TurboCretin
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 7 years ago
#10
The Stones have been living off their former selves for far too long. They should have ended things 15 years ago.
0
reply
metalthrashin'mad
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#11
Report 7 years ago
#11
The Beatles were much better. They covered more styles than the Stone's and made more good albums. SGT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!
0
reply
channy
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#12
Report 7 years ago
#12
The answer is different every time you listen to them.
0
reply
Mastermind`
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#13
Report 7 years ago
#13
The Rolling Stones
0
reply
jcockerill1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#14
Report 7 years ago
#14
(Original post by metalthrashin'mad)
The Beatles were much better. They covered more styles than the Stone's and made more good albums. SGT PEPPERS LONELY HEARTS CLUB BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND!
Covered more styles? Have you been listening to the same bands? Stones cover R'&B, blues, rock, rock 'n roll, psychedelic rock, disco, blues rock and waaaaaay more inbetween.

Beatles are far too samey, Stones have such a wider range of songs in terms of genre and depth. Exile on Main St. is better than The Beatles ever did.
0
reply
Picnic1
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#15
Report 7 years ago
#15
(Original post by jcockerill1)
Covered more styles? Have you been listening to the same bands? Stones cover R'&B, blues, rock, rock 'n roll, psychedelic rock, disco, blues rock and waaaaaay more inbetween.

Beatles are far too samey, Stones have such a wider range of songs in terms of genre and depth. Exile on Main St. is better than The Beatles ever did.
With the exception of disco, The Beatles cover all those genres too, I assure you. Get Back (and maybe Oh Darling) are R and B I suppose. I want you (she's so heavy) is bluesy. I;m sure there will be examples on The White Album but it's not my favourite album. Did The Rolling Stones ever cover music hall style like McCartney did with When I'm 64 and Martha my dear? Did the Rolling Stones ever make a point of trying to harmonise vocals as well as The Beatles did on Abbey Road? Did they ever put together such a great collage of a song as You never give me your money? Maybe they did- I don't know the Rolling Stones output nearly as well.

But McCartney makes it easy to dislike The Beatles - he doesn't even play his best Beatles songs at his concerts, just a few of the most popular Beatles numbers that he wrote and then lots of the lesser stuff that he wrote afterwards. He ends up coming across as a two bit rock and roller in thrall to Brian Wilson rather than displaying his most distinctive stuff like the aforementioned songs.
0
reply
Panda Bear
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#16
Report 7 years ago
#16
The Beatles. I've never really liked The Rolling Stones.
0
reply
jcockerill1
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#17
Report 7 years ago
#17
(Original post by Picnic1)
With the exception of disco, The Beatles cover all those genres too, I assure you. Get Back (and maybe Oh Darling) are R and B I suppose. I want you (she's so heavy) is bluesy. I;m sure there will be examples on The White Album but it's not my favourite album. Did The Rolling Stones ever cover music hall style like McCartney did with When I'm 64 and Martha my dear? Did the Rolling Stones ever make a point of trying to harmonise vocals as well as The Beatles did on Abbey Road? Did they ever put together such a great collage of a song as You never give me your money? Maybe they did- I don't know the Rolling Stones output nearly as well.

But McCartney makes it easy to dislike The Beatles - he doesn't even play his best Beatles songs at his concerts, just a few of the most popular Beatles numbers that he wrote and then lots of the lesser stuff that he wrote afterwards. He ends up coming across as a two bit rock and roller in thrall to Brian Wilson rather than displaying his most distinctive stuff like the aforementioned songs.
All you need to do is listen to Exile on Main St.; it's the best album going because of the amounts of layer each song has. The intricate "art of weaving" that comes from Keef and Mick's guitar playing makes such good harmony that Jagger just bounces off the groove of it. Wyman and Watts keep things rolling with possibly the best rhythm section of all time, they go together so well.

The only criticism I have of the Stones that puts The Beatles in a better is that they changed their line-up more times. However they still have produced some of the best albums ever, such as Sticky Fingers, Some Girls, Aftermath, Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exile on Main St, Tattoo You and Black & Blue. So many genres covered in great detail on both of the albums.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (302)
37.47%
No - but I will (61)
7.57%
No - I don't want to (60)
7.44%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (383)
47.52%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed