The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Dan Dare

Interesting thread, love the Stones but the Beatles were the more innovative band by far. When the Beatles remastered CD's were released in September, I bought the Abbey Road album (which I hadn't heard in years). Two things struck me, firstly, boy did they go out on a high, and secondly, how "rock music" it sounds. Dudess, I'm not sure that Yorkie Bars existed in 1967!

ashyle

Wouldn't class myself as the biggest fan of either, but when it comes down to their tunes and the influence they have on 'modern' music, it has to be the Beatles...

ashyle

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

No thats not true infact the beatles played pop. granted they have few ok song's. there are better bands out there.

the wwho crosby stills and nash to name two. of course there the rolling sstones and many others i think to make a comparison, of the beatles and The rolling stones is a bit like saying, a pairs nicer then a potato.

Of course there are better bands. They are compared because they were both big around the same time.

What's wrong with pop???!

Snowie

ashyle wrote: »

Of course there are better bands. They are compared because they were both big around the same time.

What's wrong with pop???!

did i say, i have a problem with pop?

ashyle

Well no, but I'd consider a band like the Stones pop too! Just cos it literally means popular music to me!

The Pontiac

ashyle wrote: »

Of course there are better bands. They are compared because they were both big around the same time.

What's wrong with pop???!

We'd be here all day if we were choosing our favourite bands. The Beatles aren't my favourite band, but I still think they are the 'greatest' band of all time.

Of course there are better bands

So, do you care to name them?

ashyle

<Ollie> wrote: »

We'd be here all day if we were choosing our favourite bands. The Beatles aren't my favourite band, but I still think they are the 'greatest' band of all time.



So, do you care to name them?

I said that in agreement with Snow Monkey. And previously I said they have had a huge influence on modern music. If I was to name the bands that I think are better I'd be going off topic even more :P

rednik

The Beatles were the greatest and their legacy will live longer than the Stones.

JackKelly

The Kinks?

Glassheart

Dudess wrote: »

That's how I'd view The Beatles - you have to consider individual opinion too.

Hate to be a nerd but Rubber Soul was released two years into their career.
A Hard Days Night might not be considered a classic by contemporary standards but it's full of great (and original) songs too...

georgem25

The Beatles!!

mikom

Hey, hey, mama, said the way you move, Gonna make you sweat, gonna make you groove.

Zeppelin all the way.

The Pontiac

Glassheart wrote: »

Hate to be a nerd but Rubber Soul was released two years into their career.
A Hard Days Night might not be considered a classic by contemporary standards but it's full of great (and original) songs too...

Hate to be a nerd mysef, but Rubber Soul was actually released five years (almost six) into their career.

The Beatles formed as a group in 1960 and released their sixth album Rubber Soul in December 1965.

jk86

<Ollie> wrote: »

Hate to be a nerd mysef, but Rubber Soul was actually released five years (almost six) into their career.

The Beatles formed as a group in 1960 and released their sixth album Rubber Soul in December 1965.

Well two years after their debut album. But it's splitting hairs tbh. And two years in music in the 60's is more like 5/6 years now

The Pontiac

jk86 wrote: »

Well two years after their debut album. But it's splitting hairs tbh. And two years in music in the 60's is more like 5/6 years now

True. It's amazing to think they released six albums in only two years.

Gerty

beatles all the way!

Beasty

FFS - this is a ROCK forum, not POP

The Beatles made good POP songs
The Stones were (and still are) a ROCK band

The Beatles could cut it in the studio, but were NEVER came close to the Stones on stage

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Beatles had classic Albums

The Stones had some unbelievable classic songs but never that classic Album

And they didn't change the world like the beatles, while I'd have more Stones in my top 10 I'd still say that the beatles are better overall. Kinda

The Pontiac

Beasty wrote: »

FFS - this is a ROCK forum, not POP

The Beatles made good POP songs
The Stones were (and still are) a ROCK band

The Beatles could cut it in the studio, but were NEVER came close to the Stones on stage

Both bands would be described as 'Rock Bands' anyway. Just look up the definition of 'Rock Music' or 'Rock Band'.

I've never seen The Stones live myself but heard they are dreadful live.

RonMexico

I like both, the Beatles were more influential, but I prefer the Stones.

Keith Richards has more attitude in his thumb than the Beatles combined. Yeah people will go on and on about John Lennon but IMO he was just a talented prick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyK0y02HvVc

Beasty

<Ollie> wrote: »

I've never seen The Stones live myself but heard they are dreadful live.

Complete Bollix

I have seen some good bands live - The Stones at Roundhay Park in 1982 is one of my top 5 concerts (only bettered by the likes of Live Aid, Bowie and Queen)

The Beatles "retired" from live performances in 1966 (try and find any decent live performances from them)

I am as big a Beatles fan as the next man - but they were never a rock band, and coulod not perform at anything like their studio quality live. The Stones were the opposite - much better on stage than on vinyl

RonMexico

I saw the Stones in The Point a few years ago and it was by far the greatest concert I have ever attended. I was right in front of the stage too

Here is a more recent performance.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yeOw8JBmXsE

The Pontiac

Beasty wrote: »

Complete Bollix

I have seen some good bands live - The Stones at Roundhay Park in 1982 is one of my top 5 concerts (only bettered by the likes of Live Aid, Bowie and Queen)

The Beatles "retired" from live performances in 1966 (try and find any decent live performances from them)

I am as big a Beatles fan as the next man - but they were never a rock band, and coulod not perform at anything like their studio quality live. The Stones were the opposite - much better on stage than on vinyl

The Beatles are a 'Rock Band'. Your previous post stated...

FFS - this is a ROCK forum, not POP

You really think The Beatles don't belong in this forum?

If you would just look up the definition. Okay, I'll do it for you..

Wikipedia.."The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960".

The Free Dictionary:
rock music - a genre of popular music originating in the 1950s; a blend of black rhythm-and-blues with white country-and-western; "rock is a generic term for the range of styles that evolved out of rock'n'roll."

I've never seen The Stones live myself, I'm only going by what people tell me (opinions I trust). Queen were always regarded as a great live band alright.

RonMexico

<Ollie> wrote: »

I've never seen The Stones live myself, I'm only going by what people tell me (opinions I trust). Queen were always regarded as a great live band alright.

They are clearly wrong.:D

K-Ren

The Beatles are far and away the best. They did the best pop, and could rock out just as well as the Stones. I could never understand why The Stones were rated so highly, or even in comparison- Brian Jones was the only musician in that band that I admire. I think Led Zeppelin would be a far better contest to be honest.

grumpytrousers

I think the Beatles, on balance, were the better band, based upon their consistency. They served their apprenticeship in Hamburg and learned to play any number of styles of music, due to having requests howled up at them by drunk sailors and pill popping prostitutes. That stood them in good stead so that when it came to writing songs, they were well able to go beyond the '3 chords' that most bands would have over employed in their earlier years. They never lost their ability to fire out a good tune, whether you want to pigeonhole it as rock or pop or whatever. Each album stands up on its own as a damn fine piece of work on its own that most bands, even today, would give their eye-teeth to have produced. And i include Beatles for Sale in that - which would be my least favourite.

On the other hand, with the Stones, I love 'em, bless their cotton socks but they're not in the same place. People might prefer them, and that's grand; they had a swagger, a confidence and an image that the Beatles couldn't match but seriously - objectively - look at their albums. They had a purple patch that went from Beggars Banquet to Exile on Main St and that's it. Before that - in the Brian Jones years - they were producing diamond singles, but the albums could be terribly patchy. After Mick Taylor left, they started to become a parody of themselves, and, for my money, have only released ONE essential studio album since 1972, and that'd be Some Girls.

Their live shows are 'good' but it's a bloody showband now, isn't it? One song by them that I've never really liked that much - and it makes me a heretic, i know - is Midnight Rambler. However, when they played it in Slane in 2007, it was savage BECAUSE it was only the 5 lads playing it. No bloody horn section. No backing vocalists, you just had a tight little blues band. For the most part, the Stones live experience is a bit too 'safe' nowadays, and the setlists leave you thinking that they're aiming it solely at the folks who pay top dollar for the tickets and only have a Greatest Hits compilation.

Mind you, if you sent me off to the desert island and told me to pick 8 tracks, I know that Gimme Shelter and Let it Loose and Jigsaw Puzzle would be in there. I'm not sure I'd have 3 Beatles tracks. When the *had* their sh*t together, they were unstoppable, but Jagger and Richards have never felt the need to stretch themselves like Lennon and McCartey did.

rossie1977

close run thing lol, the greatest pop/rock band of all time versus a band i wouldn't go outside the door to see, hmmmmm hard decision

The guy

I like the Beatles but I would definitely prefer the rolling stones.

OutlawPete

No contest ..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNPp6x7j9I8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O7PnvVgQvA

Glassheart

Beasty wrote: »

The Beatles could cut it in the studio, but were NEVER came close to the Stones on stage

Quite simply a load of rubbish.I have no idea where their reputation for being a great live act comes from.
Here are the Stones in 1969 playing Satisfaction live:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4to8DzFKaZk

It's an absolute mess.I have that Hyde Park DVD and the whole gig was a shambles.I've also seen a lot of footage of them from the 80's and they still hadn't got their live act together.And don't get me started on Slane 2007...

Here are the Beatles playing Get Back in 1969:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAYZ9BrD97U

Incidentally Get Back is a 'rock' song. :rolleyes:

I'm not cherry picking here.There are countless examples of appalling performances by the Stones on Youtube.
Check out the Rock & Roll Circus dvd.They were blown off the stage by every other band.

jk86

I always found the Beatles live performances before the studio years were mostly very good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbGhoiGgVQM

And they did have the small disadvantage of often not being able to hear themselves over the screaming :mad:

Run_to_da_hills

Difficult choice as both groups made some classics, Not a great fan of the Beatles except for their Double White and John Lennon when he went solo. Have most of the stones albums including Sticky Fingers, one of my favorite. Saw the Stones live at Slane in 1982.

The Pontiac

jk86 wrote: »

And they did have the small disadvantage of often not being able to hear themselves over the screaming :mad:

The Beatles apparently stopped performing live from the sheer hysteria of Beatlemania. The whole touring thing must have been an utter nightmare for them - not been able to leave their hotels without getting mobbed. It got to a stage where they couldn't even hear themselves playing on stage anymore. It just erupted into mass screaming from the crowd.

OutlawPete

Slighty off topic .. but I seen Nowhere Boy the other night in the cinema and it a cracking little film about John Lennon's early days.

Would highly recommend seeing it.

Beasty

jk86 wrote: »

I always found the Beatles live performances before the studio years were mostly very good

So how many "live" albums did the Beatles release?
(and I'm not talking about the ones that were pulled together and remastered years after they broke up)?

The answer, of course, is none

Now that is partially down to recording quality in the 1960's, but they are probably the only major act from that era that did not issue a live album

Again, I will re-iterate, I am a Beatles fan. I know some of the Stones live performances were ropey. However the Beatles have been deliberately very selective over what has been allowed to be released in "live" form

OutlawPete

Here's some early Live Beatles..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4-KrrgkfWQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX-LXiBCW3M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-oLEl2EuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6Lci-LMw1c

KnifeWRENCH

I like both but Beatles win hands down. Some of their stuff was rock at it's most innovative, creative and downright bizarre, yet they could still right classic pop songs and gorgeues ballads.

ashyle

OutlawPete wrote: »

Slighty off topic .. but I seen Nowhere Boy the other night in the cinema and it a cracking little film about John Lennon's early days.

Would highly recommend seeing it.

Oh I must give it a whirl. Don't love Lennon but he's very interesting nonetheless

beertons

Stones for me

RonMexico

I don't think it is fair to single out Hyde Park - isn't that the concert the day after they buried Brian Jones?

The Stones have had many many brilliant live performances. A few off ones does not make them a terrible live act.

Glassheart

Beasty wrote: »

So how many "live" albums did the Beatles release?
(and I'm not talking about the ones that were pulled together and remastered years after they broke up)?

The answer, of course, is none

Now that is partially down to recording quality in the 1960's, but they are probably the only major act from that era that did not issue a live album

Live at the Hollywood Bowl was released during the mid sixties.It was deleted because there was so much screaming in the backround.

Beasty wrote: »

Again, I will re-iterate, I am a Beatles fan. I know some of the Stones live performances were ropey. However the Beatles have been deliberately very selective over what has been allowed to be released in "live" form

I'm not sure what you are getting at here... There is no material to choose from.Not that it matters anyway.A random selection of Youtube videos will consistently show the Beatles to be a better live band.
However it is a fact that Jagger deliberately kept the performances of the Rock & Roll circus from being released for 30 years because every other band embarrassed them that day.

Glassheart

For those who love both bands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMXSC1RD7lY

Keith is a great guitarist but also a wonderful bass player.

Wibbs

OK in the interests of peace and love for all you cool cats and catesses out there. Here's a Beatle and a Stone(with a little help from a couple of mates who the classic rock types may spot):D

Have to say I always liked Lennons voice. Pity he didnt do more rock stuff. They had a huge advantage as a band in another way. Three very distinctive singers(and Ringo for that matter;):eek:) and three supremely talented songwriters. Two of which were in constant competition to better each other and themselves. They also had different talents. Macca being the more melodic in general, Lennon the more Rock in general, though both could live in each others world. Hell even Ringo got in on the song writing bit. Always liked Octopuses Garden for my sins. One of my fave songs of any of theirs is actually a post Beatle Ringo song It dont come easy.

They also had a far superior production team, headed by George Martin. Listen to 60's stones tracks to compare. They were horribly badly recorded. The Beatles have suffered under the notion that as musicians they werent very good. I disagree. Macca is widely regarded as the best bass player of his generation(by other bass players including people like entwhistle). He changed how the bass was played and regarded. And he could play a multitude of other instruments too. His piano on Lady Madonna is bloody good. Lennon was a solid rhythm guitarist and could do lead when required. Harrison grew up with skiffle and the like yet halfway through the 60's suddenly was confronted by lead guitarists like Clapton, yet he kept it solid. Even Clapton agrees that he never wasted a note and each lead fitted the song. Try imagining a beatles track with a diff lead break. Nuff said. Then we have Ringo. Much maligned Ringo. John Bonham he aint, but look at what he had to learn to keep up with the rest of the mad stuff the band were doing. And he did. Other top drummers agree. On a few occasions the rest would record a basic song and he would then have to feel the rhythm and lay down the drum track after. On stuff without a click track. That was all over the place rhythm wise. Few enough could do that. Plus he was a human drum machine who very quickly hit the groove. In all the studio tapes on only two occasions did they have to stop a song cos Ringo screwed up.

The fact is though it's apples(no pun) and oranges though. The stones had Jagger who basically wrote the template for the lead singer in a rock band(Morrison polished it). Without Jagger, you wouldnt have had Plant, or Bono(cue Degsy hunting down Jagger as we speak ). The two bands were a very different beast and equally brilliant in what they did.

Wibbs

Glassheart wrote: »

For those who love both bands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMXSC1RD7lY

Keith is a great guitarist but also a wonderful bass player.

:D snap!! :eek:

Glassheart

Wibbs wrote: »

:D snap!! :eek:

:pac:


For those who voted 'WHO?'...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMBvxNqd7hs&feature=related

ashyle

RonMexico wrote: »

I don't think it is fair to single out Hyde Park - isn't that the concert the day after they buried Brian Jones?

Is that true??

Dudess

mike65 wrote: »

Damn right John Lennon never wrote a song this good.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmgwxMrq0kc

I've played that a few times now since you posted it - great tune.

LordSutch

Who
http://www.last.fm/music/The+Who/+images/295272

nlgbbbblth

Wibbs wrote: »

Out of that, they were the first band to release an album that had no singles on it. Sgt Pepper. Strawberry fields forever/Penny Lane were the first two tracks laid down for that album(and the first double A side single too by the by), but they decided to release them and not put them on the album.

This is not true.

No UK singles were released from the following UK LPs - all released prior to Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band (06/1967)

Rolling Stones No 2 (01/1965)
Aftermath (04/1966)
Between The Buttons (01/1967)

With The Beatles (11/1963)

It was common practice in the UK for singles not to be included on LPs. The US took a different view as can be seen from the respective Beatles and Rolling Stones LPs released over there - amended tracklistings with singles included / appended.

Havermeyer

Helena Fierce Jacuzzi wrote: »

The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles, The Beatles.

Anyone who says otherwise is wrong.

What he said. ^

No contest, in my opinion.