To each their own but the Beatles just never did it for me. The Stones on the other hand I could listen to all day.
It's a debate that has raged for 50+ years. Which was the better of the two biggest English bands, and why people think so. I am a Beatles fan, was in elementary school when they appeared on the Ed Sullivan Show. But I did like many of the Rolling Stones songs.
The Stones outlasted the Beatles as a band by 40 years. The Beatles pretty much had stopped functioning as a band by 1970. But what they accomplished in the ten years they were together is the stuff of legends. The Stones also had some personnel changes, and I think, could the Beatles have replaced any of their members (after they got famous) and still been the same?
I think there's no doubt the Beatles were the most innovative band the world has ever seen. My opinion is they are the shining star in the middle of their own solar system, and the Stones are the biggest planet orbiting that star.
I try not to use record sales to form my opinion, because it's not even close, the Beatles win by a landslide. So what do the rest of you think?
To each their own but the Beatles just never did it for me. The Stones on the other hand I could listen to all day.
The Beatles for me. Never liked the Stones.
The Beatles
The Who
The Rolling Stones
In that order, for me. Sometimes, I have the Kinks as my third English band because Ray Davies is such a good songwriter.
Led Zep and Queen deserve mention too. But I liked the Kinks too. The Hollies as well.
It isn’t fair to the Beatles to compare them to Tyus Stones.
Now this is a really tough question.
The longevity of the Rolling Stones doesn't factor into my view, as after 15 years or so the Stones were just mailing it in for a paycheck.
By the end of their run the Beatles were getting solid contributions from three members of the group. The Stones had that dynamic as well with Brian Jones and then Mick Taylor (probably some of their best work). I don't count Ronnie Wood, as his claim to fame is being Rod Stewart's running buddy from the Faces.
Musically, I really have to give the nod to the Stones as their music has held up better over the years. I say this because when a song like Satisfaction comes on the radio, it still sounds fresh and it sounds like a rock song. I find a lot of Beatle music is a bit to pop like for me.
Of course the debate doesn't end there as we have to look at the bigger picture. The Beatles are the clear winners when it comes to their influence on society. From Beatle Bangs, to Beatle Boots, movies, and kiddie cartoons, you name it and the Beatles had it. So when all is said and done the Beatles get my vote.
always viewed them as complementary, no need to choose one over the other...
Beatles were more inventive. Stones rocked harder and (obviously) longer.
Beatle recordings still sell millions a year, in fact when Sgt Pepper was re-released last summer as a 50th anniversary of the original album's release, it went to number one. 50 years later!
Stones for me.
But, willing to support McCartney as a musical genius. I'm sure that news might make his day.
Nothing incites bodily violence quicker than a Duke fan turning in your direction and saying 'scoreboard.'
Should edit to say that I put Pink Floyd ahead of the Stones. Although I have seen the Stones three times, and agree that they are “the greatest rock n’ roll band” ever. The Beatles, The Who and the Floyd were much more innovative though IMO and the musicianship was higher quality.
Roger Daultry, Lennon and McCartney all > Jagger in terms of singers. Gilmour no slouch either.
Moon and Mason > Watts on drums. Moon one of the best ever. Mason is not far behind. Ringo, well —good for his band, and a better songwriter than the others.
John Entwistle one of the best bass players ever. McCartney not complicated but incredible songwriter as is Roger Waters. Bill Wymann, meh.
All of the guitarists are very good and depends on your tastes. Gilmour is criminally underrated IMO.
Songwriting: Beatles, Who, Floyd then Stones to me in terms of innovation and lyrical content.
Each band is great. Glad I got a chance to see three of the four, multiple times.
Gimme Shelter is one of the top five songs ever written though. To me.
Last edited by OldPhiKap; 12-17-2017 at 04:39 PM.
This has always been an apples and oranges thing for me. In the USA, the Beatles lasted for about six years, six extraordinary, busy years but six years. And even less as a concert act.
Even if one thinks the Stones started mailing it in by the mid-80s or so, they still have a much deeper body of work. Just look at what they produced after the breakup of the Beatles, starting with Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street and including some other pretty solid work.
So, 1 and 1A for me,in any order one picks, with the Kinks and the Who from the 1960s. The Beach Boys would also be on my sixties-group-Mt. Rushmore. They were from the British side of Hawthorne, IIRC.
As an aside, if we're adding '60s British groups to the pantheon, let's not forget the Yardbirds.
We could just put “Bands with Eric Clapton” (John Mayall’s Bluesbreakers, Cream, Blind Faith, solo, and American Bonnie & Delaney) and it would be hard to quibble.
What should I listen to for Animals besides the few classic tracks (We Gotta Get Out of this Place, House of the Rising Sun, Don’t Let Me Be Misunderstood)? Always looking for good deep cuts.
I’ve read numerous interviews from the Brits, saying that when they heard “Pet Sounds” they knew the bar had been seriously raised. One of those Woke moments. Like when Pete Townsend called Eric Clapton, and took him to see Jimi Hendrix in London before Monterrey and Woodstock. Changed the game.
Of course, The Clash is the only band that matters. But that’s a whole different story.
I agree with those who have observed that there's no more need to choose between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones than there is to decide between, say, pancakes for breakfast and pizza at the pregame tailgate -- both originate from the same basic raw material, but produce a decidedly different final product. Both the Beatles and the Stones professed to have their roots in American rhythm and blues, and both started out covering various popular R&B songs. But as I see it, during their crucial first few years on the world stage, the Beatles, under the guidance of Brian Epstein, chose to travel up main street by opting to evolve their music towards clean-scrubbed, commercially safe pop. Conversely, the Stones elected to roll down the back streets and follow the influence of the blues to develop what might be called "nasty/naughty rock and roll." For those of us who were fortunate enough to be teenagers in the 1960s, it was like having your cake . . . and your Coors [or substitute other consciousness-altering substance of choice], too. Why choose when you can enjoy both?
“The Beatles want to hold your hand. The Rolling Stones want to burn your town down.”
Anyone who has not read Keef’s autobio “Life” is really missing something. Funny, informative, and an easy read. Really good discussion of his relation with John and Paul, and the early collaborative release history with the two bands.