Beatles or Stones?

[OleMissCub]

Alas, the ultimate Rock n Roll question.

 

Factoids (US Billboard Charts)

 

The Beatles: 1963-1970

-Total US Album sales: 168.5 million units

-No. 1 singles: 20

-No. 1 albums: 19

-Rolling Stone Magazine's top 25 albums all time: 1) Sgt. Pepper 3) Revolver 5) Rubber Soul 10) The White Album 14) Abbey Road

 

The Rolling Stones: 1964-Present

-Total US Album sales: 65.5 million units

-No. 1 singles: 8

-No. 1 albums: 8

-Rolling Stone Magazine's top 25 albums all time: 7) Exile on Main Street

 

Personally, i'd go with the Beatles. However, i'm a HUGE Stones fan 64-69, which is when Brian Jones their lead guitar player died. Following his death, they've never done anything much to rival what they did with him in the band.

Edited April 26, 2006 by OleMissCub

[Tracer Bullet]

I voted Beatles as well, though I am also a huge Stones fan. If you're talking pure rock 'n roll, I think you can make a great case for the Stones. But if you forced me to pick between the two, I'd go Beatles.

[rawaction]

WU-TANG!

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Neither?

[OleMissCub]

I thought about adding Led Zep to the mix, whom I think are the best outright kicka** Rock'n'Roll band ever.

 

However, I decided to keep it to the age old Beatles v. Stones debate.

[Balsa]

Stones in a heartbeart. The Beatles were way too preppy.

[SouthSideRyan]

Beatles easy. And I love the Stones. Abbey Road is way too low on that top 25.

[wade]

I voted Beatles. The cultural impact was a kick in the face.

[OleMissCub]

Stones in a heartbeart. The Beatles were way too preppy.

 

Preppy only for a few years, and that was only as an act that was contrived by their manager.

 

He had a difficult time getting them to be "preppy" as you say. When they first started playing before making it big they used to spit on the audience, poor beer on them, John was known to flash his privates at them, they'd cuss, play drunk, all the stuff the Stones were known for. One could call them sellouts, however it didn't last long, and after two years of it 64-66 they said "F**k It" and did their own thing. It should also be noted that their "rivalry" never existed. John and Paul in fact wrote the Stones' very first No.1 song for them "I wanna be your man". They were all pretty good friends and the Beatles were influential in getting the Stones their first record deal as well. Usually if you ever come across vintage Tigerbeat-type magazines from the 60's and there is a Beatle interviewed in it, they'll usually always list "The Rolling Stones" as their favorite band.

 

Difference in two years:

 

http://www.beatlefans.com/post/london.jpg

 

http://www.beatlefans.com/post/walrus.jpg

 

I want John's outfit there. I'd wear it everyday.

[Andy]

I'm not a huge fan of either, but I like the Beatles more.

[GhostRunner]

The Beatles, hands-down, no contest. They revolutionized music in so many ways, including songwriting, studio performance, studio technique, and pure innovation. Their early days were great, but Help!, Rubber Soul and Revolver ushered in a musical sea change that still reverberates even today.

 

Although to be honest, I feel the better argument (per Mia in "Pulp Fiction" anyway), is the Beatles vs. Elvis. The Stones had their moments, no doubt, but from Satanic Majesties onward, they were just trying to keep up with John, Paul, George and Ringo. The Stones' recent years of crap albums and incessant touring doesn't help their case, either.

 

 

. . . there's two kinds of people in this world, Elvis people and Beatles people. Now Beatles people can like Elvis. And Elvis people can like the Beatles. But nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice tells me who you are.

[OleMissCub]

 

Although to be honest, I feel the better argument (per Mia in "Pulp Fiction" anyway), is the Beatles vs. Elvis. The Stones had their moments, no doubt, but from Satanic Majesties onward, they were just trying to keep up with John, Paul, George and Ringo. The Stones' recent years of crap albums and incessant touring doesn't help their case, either.

 

Well this all kinda goes into the argument I make quite frequently where I suggest that the Stones should have hung it up when Brian Jones died. Off the top of my head, they've only had one number 1 single since his death and that was Honky Tonk Woman in 1970. I think they've been spent the last 35 years diluting their wonderful 1960's canon of work with uninspired crap for the most part.

 

But 1960's Rolling Stones....they're bad to the bone!

 

Oh ya, my main beef with Elvis is that he never wrote his own songs. I think Rock artists should do that.

[treebird]

beach boys

[Tracer Bullet]

 

Although to be honest, I feel the better argument (per Mia in "Pulp Fiction" anyway), is the Beatles vs. Elvis. The Stones had their moments, no doubt, but from Satanic Majesties onward, they were just trying to keep up with John, Paul, George and Ringo. The Stones' recent years of crap albums and incessant touring doesn't help their case, either.

 

Well this all kinda goes into the argument I make quite frequently where I suggest that the Stones should have hung it up when Brian Jones died. Off the top of my head, they've only had one number 1 single since his death and that was Honky Tonk Woman in 1970. I think they've been spent the last 35 years diluting their wonderful 1960's canon of work with uninspired crap for the most part.

 

But 1960's Rolling Stones....they're bad to the bone!

 

Oh ya, my main beef with Elvis is that he never wrote his own songs. I think Rock artists should do that.

 

Are you guys serious? I picked the Beatles too, but the Stones did some great work after Satanic Majesties - Beggars Banquet and Sticky Fingers are two of the greatest albums ever, not to mention Exile on Main St. Were they trying to keep w/ the Beatles? Maybe. But these are some of their best works.

 

My problem with the Stones of the last 30 years is they've put out too much crap. They probably have as many great songs as the Beatles, but it took them 40 years to do it (and took the Beatles less than 10). Most of the Stones' albums of the last 30 years just have too much crap mixed in with the gems.

[OleMissCub]

 

My problem with the Stones of the last 30 years is they've put out too much crap. They probably have as many great songs as the Beatles, but it took them 40 years to do it (and took the Beatles less than 10). Most of the Stones' albums of the last 30 years just have too much crap mixed in with the gems.

 

I dunno...with the exception of "Start Me Up" (which I can't stand), "Angie" and "Brown Sugar", i really can't think of any "GREAT" Rolling Stones songs since 1970.

 

Look at the songs that are pre-1970: Sympathy for the devil, paint it black, gimme shelter, honky tonk woman, satisfaction, as tears go by, get off of my cloud, you can't always get what you want, jumping jack flash, street fightin man, heart of stone, time is on my side, let's spend the night together.

 

I really think they lost alot of their "mojo" when Jones died.

[rocket]

beatles beatles beatles

[Tracer Bullet]

 

My problem with the Stones of the last 30 years is they've put out too much crap. They probably have as many great songs as the Beatles, but it took them 40 years to do it (and took the Beatles less than 10). Most of the Stones' albums of the last 30 years just have too much crap mixed in with the gems.

 

I dunno...with the exception of "Start Me Up" (which I can't stand), "Angie" and "Brown Sugar", i really can't think of any "GREAT" Rolling Stones songs since 1970.

 

Look at the songs that are pre-1970: Sympathy for the devil, paint it black, gimme shelter, honky tonk woman, satisfaction, as tears go by, get off of my cloud, you can't always get what you want, jumping jack flash, street fightin man, heart of stone, time is on my side, let's spend the night together.

 

I really think they lost alot of their "mojo" when Jones died.

 

I hate Start Me Up as well, but Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sister Morphine, Moonlight Mile, Loving Cup, Tumblin' Dice, Angie, Beast of Burden, Miss You, Waiting On a Friend all come to mind as "GREAT" post-70 Stones. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

 

But, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Stones were better w/o Brian Jones, they just weren't. I'm just saying we shouldn't ignore their catalog after Satanic Majesties (or even after 1970).

[OleMissCub]

I hate Start Me Up as well, but Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sister Morphine, Moonlight Mile, Loving Cup, Tumblin' Dice, Angie, Beast of Burden, Miss You, Waiting On a Friend all come to mind as "GREAT" post-70 Stones. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

 

But, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Stones were better w/o Brian Jones, they just weren't. I'm just saying we shouldn't ignore their catalog after Satanic Majesties (or even after 1970).

 

Still, you named 8 or so songs they've done in the past 35 years, none of which are as popular as their early stuff. 35 years is about 5 times as long as the Beatles were recording material.

 

Bottom line from a musicology standpoint, in my opinion, is that the Stones should have hung it up when Jones died. That way, they'd have an easily defined canon of material much like the Beatles. Nearly every Beatles album is an "essential" of anyone's record collection. The Stones have diluted their canon to such an extent over the past 35 years that it's hard to define essential Stones records.

[snoodmonger]

The Monkees

[OleMissCub]

The Monkees

 

naw, the Lovin Spoonful was better.

[hardcorecubfan]

the Beatles with if you go with the addage "imitatation is the best form of flattery"

 

what they contributed to music reverberates today. from style of music to music videos

[rawaction]

Rolling Stones lose simply because of they are gross looking.

[Tracer Bullet]

I hate Start Me Up as well, but Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sister Morphine, Moonlight Mile, Loving Cup, Tumblin' Dice, Angie, Beast of Burden, Miss You, Waiting On a Friend all come to mind as "GREAT" post-70 Stones. And I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

 

But, to be clear, I'm not arguing that the Stones were better w/o Brian Jones, they just weren't. I'm just saying we shouldn't ignore their catalog after Satanic Majesties (or even after 1970).

 

Still, you named 8 or so songs they've done in the past 35 years, none of which are as popular as their early stuff. 35 years is about 5 times as long as the Beatles were recording material.

 

Bottom line from a musicology standpoint, in my opinion, is that the Stones should have hung it up when Jones died. That way, they'd have an easily defined canon of material much like the Beatles. Nearly every Beatles album is an "essential" of anyone's record collection. The Stones have diluted their canon to such an extent over the past 35 years that it's hard to define essential Stones records.

 

I agree that there's been a lot of crap from the Stones in the last 30 years. But a world without Sticky Fingers is not a world I want to be a part of.

[Chocolate Milk]

The Beatles in a bloodbath.

[SouthSideRyan]

Rolling Stones lose simply because of they are gross looking.

 

John and George probably aren't too beautiful right now either.

 

Re: The Monkees, I quite like I'm not your steppin stone.