Buftex Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Love the both. I will lean toward the Stones though. The Beatles were a brilliant flame that burned out fast...but they were something., really something.... The Stones have been around forever, and are easy to take pot-shots at...but in their prime (1967-73) I think they defined modern rock-n'roll. The Doors? Please! The Stones encompass so much, and have been influential in every facet of the music business. Fashion, business, recording...and best of all, music. Saw a funny quote, sort of related somewhere...something like "Wings...the band the Beatles could have been!" Most people like the Stones but if given a chance to see bands in their prime, they would not make most Top 10 lists.Beatles a clear #1, and then depending on my mood it could be Kinks, Led Zeppelin, The Who, Doors, The Band, Queen, Nirvana, Bowie, Hendrix, CCR, Beach Boys, The Ramones, Santana, Uncle Tupelo, Cream, Elvis, Talking Heads, Skynard, The Clash, As the great George Carlin once said: "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize, half the people are even stupider"
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted March 6, 2015 Author Posted March 6, 2015 I am a bigger stones fan. Rolling Stones were just pure rock and roll
The Big Cat Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 i like the Beatles,but my god, when it comes to rock and roll, the Stones are it. i care not to read through this thread since a "majority" are absolutely wrong. and i mean that sincerely. jw 100% Agree. Beatles are elevator music, Stones bad ass rock. It means that while the Rolling Stones have a some great songs, the Beatles have collection of great albums all plastered with great songs on them which makes them significantly better in my mind. Nah, the majority of us just read the title and answered the poll. It doesn't say which band rocks harder or is more rock and roll, it just says "Beatles vs Stones" and "Which is the better band?" The message above adequately suffices for my rebuttal to the first two nonsensical replies before it. But the elevator music bit is just flat wrong. It asked who was the better band, not who created the best rock and roll. Considering the only instrument Mick can play is his lips -- the Beatles are clearly the winner. And he doesn't even do that as well as 75% of the Beatles.. The Who in their prime were a better Rock and Roll band than the Stones. No one is "absolutely" wrong as taste in art is universally subjective. I agree with part of this. The Who were overrated. Fact. I agree with this. If we're going by rock your breasts off rock and roll, then the Stones (I guess) were the "better" band, but I would argue that they were just the more prolific hard rock band since songs like Helter Skelter, Polythene Pam and most of the Beatles early stuff would suggest they had it in them just as much. It just wasn't their focus. But even in the realm of rock your breasts off rock and roll (in the late 60's early 70's), the Stones weren't even the best at that. Led Zeppelin has them by a mile and Cream took the genre to a whole other level. Don't get me wrong. I love me some stones. But let's not confuse effort with results.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) Rolling Stones/Beatles...doesn't even matter. The Who. Edited March 6, 2015 by joesixpack
Buftex Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I'd put Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice or Sympathy for the Devil up against anything else...
rumblefish Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 as Brewster would say "vote for none of the above" with that I will
bbb Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I'd put Gimme Shelter, Tumbling Dice or Sympathy for the Devil up against anything else... There's no Beatles song better than these or B word, Rocks Off, and at least 20 others.
The Big Cat Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 There're dozens of Beatles songs better than these or B word, Rocks Off, and at least 20 others. Correct.
bbb Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 Now you Beatles aholes have done it. Thanks alot: 'Gimme Shelter' filmmaker dies http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/entertainment/feat-obit-albert-maysles-gimme-shelter-thr/index.html
Gugny Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 Now you Beatles aholes have done it. Thanks alot: 'Gimme Shelter' filmmaker dies http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/06/entertainment/feat-obit-albert-maysles-gimme-shelter-thr/index.html ob la di, ob la da. Life goes on ... brah.
bbb Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 ob la di, ob la da. Life goes on ... brah. That's the type of song I think of when I can't put The Beatles close to being as good as The Stones. That and Walrus crap, and Yellow Submarine. And, the stuff about yellow mustard.
FireChan Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 The message above adequately suffices for my rebuttal to the first two nonsensical replies before it. But the elevator music bit is just flat wrong. And he doesn't even do that as well as 75% of the Beatles.. I agree with part of this. I agree with this. If we're going by rock your breasts off rock and roll, then the Stones (I guess) were the "better" band, but I would argue that they were just the more prolific hard rock band since songs like Helter Skelter, Polythene Pam and most of the Beatles early stuff would suggest they had it in them just as much. It just wasn't their focus. But even in the realm of rock your breasts off rock and roll (in the late 60's early 70's), the Stones weren't even the best at that. Led Zeppelin has them by a mile and Cream took the genre to a whole other level. Don't get me wrong. I love me some stones. But let's not confuse effort with results. The Who overrated? Nahhh. Beatles over Stones any day. Beatles could and did tons of different sounds successfully. Stones, not so much.
Gugny Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 That's the type of song I think of when I can't put The Beatles close to being as good as The Stones. That and Walrus crap, and Yellow Submarine. And, the stuff about yellow mustard. I kind of, in an innocent and peaceful kind of way, want to kick your ass for those remarks.
Lurker Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 My first thought was, "define band." If "band" means playing live and entertaining, then it's the Stones hands down. If it means composing, arranging and creating timeless art, then the Fab Four get the nod. The beauty of it all is, we can have our cake and eat it too. No need to pick sides...
bbb Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 I kind of, in an innocent and peaceful kind of way, want to kick your ass for those remarks. Same!
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 That's the type of song I think of when I can't put The Beatles close to being as good as The Stones. That and Walrus crap, and Yellow Submarine. And, the stuff about yellow mustard. But how would we make it to the 50th floor without hey Jude to entertain us?
bbb Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 That song is interminable. The beginning is pretty good, but when McCartney does it in concert and it's Na na na na na for the last 4-5 minutes, it's like shut up already!
Beerball Posted March 7, 2015 Posted March 7, 2015 as Brewster would say "vote for none of the above" with that I will Which is the better band" too complicated for ya?
Recommended Posts