Thread: The Beatles or The Stones?

I will always pick the Beatles over the Stones. More influential over music and history in general. Not that anyone asked but if I had to choose an album that most influenced music it would be Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys. Give that one some thought...

It depends on my mood. They are both great.

Just to be fair, the Beatles were a great band, and from the viewpoint of history had a bigger impact on the culture than the Stones did. Also they quit very early and went their separate ways pretty much achieving stardom all over again in their solo careers.

The Stones are eligible for geriatric care and still performing AFAIK. So while the Beatles were the more important band in one sense, from a rock & roll point of view the Stones were still coming out with big hits, if that is any criteria, into the mid '80s. IOW, longevity gives the Stones an advantage IMHO.

The beatles have always sucked, talk about some poor singers and musicians and they top my list. The stones are a way better. but if you want great.... The Who, The Kinks and The Moody Blues out class both those poser bands by a leaps and bounds!

Although Clapton, The Grateful Dead and Neil Young get played more because SWMBO likes them too.

jim

The Stones by a mile. For whatever reason, the Beatles just never did it for me. They had a few songs I enjoyed but for the most part I never fully identified with them or their music. The Stones - Salt of the Earth.

Apples and oranges... The Beatles are a more creative and cerebral group. The Stones simply rock. IIRC growing up except for around 1963/64 when they were both dominating the radio stations they seemed to take turns in the spotlight. But it's more fun to play Stones music on guitar so I have to go that direction. Neil is right up there as well though, especially on guitar.

The Beatles were by far the most Influential and innovative of the two, If they had only released Sgt Peppers it would be legacy enough to place them above the Stones in my opinion but they were so much more collectively and separately. I do like the Stones earlier stuff and one or two tracks from later up as far as Start Me Up. The label "Genius" would sit more comfortably on McCartney than any of the Stones I imagine. Either way neither are my personal favourite but the Beatles win by a country mile in a straight race between the two

Originally Posted by syslight

The beatles have always sucked.....The Who, The Kinks and The Moody Blues

Oh please, those bands owe their existence to the Fabs, and I'm a big fan of the Who as well. Even Denny Laine, formerly of the Moody Blues, found it fit to play sideman to McCartney in Wings for nearly 10 years....