Thread: The Beatles or The Stones?

I thought I'd start a fun thread for those of a certain age or for music lovers in general

Post your reasons why you love one or the other. But please let's keep this on topic.... if Cream, Deep Purple, Traffic, Procol Harum or god forbid Herman's Hermits or Henry Mancini's Orchestra are more your cup of tea please do not respond with your preferred alternative.

I'll start, but with a disclaimer. Neil Young might be my favourite musician from my own country but the Beatles will always be #1 on my Greatest Bands of All Time list. I love the Stones too, but The Beatles are the better band in my mind.

So, between these two titans which is your pick?

Always liked The Stones better…more of a rock sound and less bee boppy for me. But then again you know my musical taste Ryan…lol.
Yellow Submarine makes me wanna punch something…lol.

Originally Posted by Catrentshaving

Always liked The Stones better…

How did I know you were going to say that?

I was about 14 when these guys came out with this disgusting bubble gum stuff called "I Wanna Hold Your Hand," and I predicted that they would never get anywhere ..... ....... about the same time the stones came out with Not Fade Away, a cover of a Buddy Holly tune. They were my cup of tea. I began to like the Beatles when they did the Revolver album, maybe the one before that, can't think of the name of it offhand. After that I liked all there stuff but not much before that. Must have been the acid, or maybe the Maharishi. Stones were the rock band though AFAIC.

My vote is for the stones, the B's just don't do it for me.

Oh man great thread, really hard decision, I could cop out I guess, but I think I am going to have to squeak it to The Stones "Miss You" I just really like and always have..

Tough call for sure. 25 years ago I would have said Beatles hands down, but lately I'd have to go for the Stones. But I'll probably flip-flop on this one constantly for the rest of my life.

The Beatles were unbelievable songwriters, and arguably the more creative force - particularly in their later years once they got beyond Jimmy's favourite bubble gum stuff. Side 2 of Abbey Road and all of Sgt Peppers are, IMHO, pure genius. And they evolved creatively far more than the Stones did. Compare their early records to their late ones and it can be hard to imagine how they got from a to b. But a Stones record always sounds like a Stones record. That's not necessarily a bad thing as they hit on a killer formula early on, but I don't think it can be argued that they were as creative a band as the Beatles.

But then the Stones have always rocked harder than the Beatles (Hamburg era excepted!), and if you've got the blues, there's no contest. The descendants of the Delta and Chicago will hit you in a place no band coming from the skiffle tradition can.

Then again, the Beatles have never been tainted by disco...

So I'm afraid I'm sitting firmly on the fence on this one and agreeing with Ryan by casting my vote for Neil.

Never much cared for the Stones, so I would have to vote for the Beatles.

of course, I also like Hermans Hermits...

They don't even compare.
Beatles is the biggest band in history.
The Stones?
Junkies with at best a mediocre ability to play a few chords...

Brown Sugar, Honkytonk Woman, Street Fightin' Man

The Beatles have it for musicality, but the Rolling Stones really are the best Rock and Roll band.

Anybody else remember the Old Filmore Auditorium in San Francisco? $3 admission, Bill Graham
handing out apples at the door, 20 minute solos from some of the best musicians of the day?

Say what you want about the 60's, but those were good times.