what do you prefer? The Beatles or The Rolling Stones and why

BornToRun88

which do you prefer and why?

I can easily say The Beatles, their songs have much more energy than the stones while the beatles had a great musical virtuosity in stuff like the sgt peppers album, yesterday,eleanor rigby,strawberry fields forever and the second half of the abbey road album.

Rigsby

Why the "or" ??

I like both !! :eek:

"Why" is irrelevant. It's all good music.

BornToRun88

well there are some people who have a preference for one over the other......that's all

Kold

The Stones' catalogue doesn't nearly match The Beatle's output. But these days, I prefer to whack on the Stones. It just seems to have aged a lot better.

Glassheart

The Beatles of course.

Why?
Because after 45 years the Stones haven't been able to achieve what the Beatles did in 7.

whatawaster

The Beatles because the quality of their music never dropped. No band has ever come close to being as good as them.
Their early albums, particularly “With the Beatles” are all extremely under-rated I think. They made it commonplace for bands to write and record their own material, rather than using professional songwriters or just releasing covers. And if their early stuff was great, what can be said about their later work? From 1966 to 1969 they made Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, The White Album and Abbey Road. Each of them for different reasons changed the musical landscape forever.

I love the Stones and I think they belong in a very elite group of Artists below the Beatles, along with Dylan, Elvis Presley, The Smiths, Bowie and a couple others.

SB-08

Love the Stones but the Beatles by far. They have three or four times the amount of classic songs. Lennon/McCartney overall were a far better songwriting team than Jagger/Richards. I could listen to the Beatles all day long, but not the Stones - Jagger's voice tends to grate after a while imo. The Stones havent made a classic album in over 30 years. Having said that, they still are one of the best live bands there is.

Placid_Casual

The Beach Boys.

J.S. Pill

Rigsby wrote: »

Why the "or" ??

I like both !! :eek:

"Why" is irrelevant. It's all good music.

Amen

Still Prefer the Stones though....

Manly man music

Burning Eclipse

Saw The Stones there a few years back in Slane, was blown away by how good they are live, Jagger's voice in particular stood out that night. But...

The Beatles, to answer the original question, without a moments hesitation. As a whatawaster pointed out, the period of time between Revolver and Abbey Road... wow!

Kold

You know who were good? Love.

tech77

Placid_Casual wrote: »

The Beach Boys.

LOL.
Was scanning down the page wondering who'd be the first to post it.

Bodhidharma

The Beatles were a better band, but I prefer The stones. They had more attitude and they're songs have a bit more get up and go. Obviously picking one over another isn't necessary but thats my choice.

I think a big part of my decision is the fact that I simply cannot stand McCartney, for that reason The Beatles will never be one of my favorite bands.

Rigsby

Bodhidharma wrote: »

I think a big part of my decision is the fact that I simply cannot stand McCartney, for that reason The Beatles will never be one of my favorite bands.

This does not seem a logical reason for making a decision IMO. You are not being asked to live with the guy, just to enjoy and appriciate the music. Personalities should not be a factor.

Just my view on it.

Auvers

The Beatles were just a bunch of namby pamby tossers

The Stones FTW its just a pity they all died in 1978

Bodhidharma

Rigsby wrote: »

This does not seem a logical reason for making a decision IMO. You are not being asked to live with the guy, just to enjoy and appriciate the music. Personalities should not be a factor.

Just my view on it.

Of course personalities come into it. The question is not which band do you think makes better music, it's who do you prefer. Personality has a lot to do with it. A band is made up of a group of personalities, and their individual personalities contribute to the band's mystique.

Rigsby

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Of course personalities come into it. The question is not which band do you think makes better music, it's who do you prefer. Personality has a lot to do with it. A band is made up of a group of personalities, and their individual personalities contribute to the band's mystique.

I'm afraid well have to agree to differ here. My reasons for liking or disliking a band is based purely on the music. To me a band is made up of a group of musicians. Granted, their personalities might have an input into the music they produce, and will possibly come out in the music, but personalities alone don't matter to me. If you go to a rock concert or gig, you don't go to interact personally (except through the music) with an artist.

loveissucide

Beatles,really like the more experimental Revolver/Sgt Pepper's/White Album era.That said Let It Bleed and Beggar's Banquet are great stuff.

Although as far as 60's groups go it's Kinks>Beatles>Velvet Underground>Byrds>Zombies>Stones>Love>The Who.

Mr. Presentable

Rolling Stones.

For me the beatles wrote and played bland pop music. The Stones had more edge to them and better (imo) craft as musicians.

But I prefer The Who to either one.

loveissucide

Bodhidharma wrote: »

Of course personalities come into it. The question is not which band do you think makes better music, it's who do you prefer. Personality has a lot to do with it. A band is made up of a group of personalities, and their individual personalities contribute to the band's mystique.

Only in the sense that music constitutes personal expression. I fail to understand this idea of "Mystique".

Jesus Wept

blur

kart

Rigsby wrote: »

Why the "or" ??

I like both !! :eek:

"Why" is irrelevant. It's all good music.

^That.

But if i have to choose i go for The Beatles.

neeshboy

definitely the beatles. while the rolling stones are a good rock n roll band, they do not have the range of styles or talent that john paul george and ringo have

candy-gal1

probably the beatles, if i had to choose! catchy lyrics, 60s band sound, and tunes that get into your head automatically!
plus Ozzy loves them

siltirocker

To have a satisfying Beatles greatest hits you need about 70 songs or so.
Whereas the Stones' 40 licks could have been halfed with little argument.

Whil Let It Bleed, Exile, Beggar's and S/T are great they have a woeful amount of **** under there belt. The Beatles don't. Never a poor release or even a mediocre release.
Many consider Magical Mystery Tour to be 'The Beatles' poorest effort. The track list is as follows:

'Magical Mystery Tour'
'Fool on the Hill'
'Flying'
'Blue Jay Way'
'Your Mother Should Know'
'I Am the Walrus'
'Hello, Goodbye'
'Strawbery Fields Forever'
'Penny Lane'
'Baby, You're A Rich Man'
'All You Need Is Love'

I am the walrus, magical mystery tour, all you need is love, etc. That's all still frickin' awesome!!!


Although the Rolling Stones are so much cooler! IMO:cool:

Glassheart

nipplenuts wrote: »

The Stones had more edge to them

I think Lennon had more 'edge' than the whole lot of them put together...

Kold

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E8pKdZzZQU

Not enough love for Love these days.

deadhead13

The Stones.

I think The Rolling Stones rep has suffered a bit because they're still going, have made duff records and there is the unedifying specticle of Mick Jagger doing his chicken dance at 67. Whereas The Beatles are frozen in time - 1970. I just prefer The Stones music.

Handsome Bob

J.S. Pill wrote: »

Amen

Still Prefer the Stones though....

Manly man music

:eek: Even with flamboyant Jagger on the mic? :pac:

I would say the Rolling Stones, as stated already I think their music has aged better. I mostly change the radio frequency when I hear the Beatles coming on.