Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
- Thread starter TurnipDaBeet
- Start date
The Beatles were the first super rock band and worldwide phenomenon. However, the Stones were just as great and lasted much longer (producing hits into the 90s). Also the Stones rocked a bit harder. So Stones for me.
Never understand the comparison. The Beatles were a quartet while the Stones were Mick Jagger and a group of musicians the names of which most people never knew until they were in their 50s. The Beatles were noted for their vocals, lyrics and the blending of voice while the Stones were all about a great lead singer in front of a sensational hard rock band. I like them both but I listen to a lot more of the Beatles especially the earlier stuff.
No room for Zepp in here
This aint the most overrated band ever thread
This aint the most overrated band ever thread
This is a tough one. In my younger years I would have said The Beatles hands down. As I get older I like The Rolling Stones more.
This is Funny. Having grown up in the Beatles Era it seemed at the time you either had to like the Beatles or the Stones. You couldn't like Both. I was Beatle Fan. As you get older you learn you can Appreciate Both.
Stones by a mile. Much of the Beatles music, imo, could not be played live, hence the reason they quit touring, or one reason. Stones much better live band. Much of the music the Beatles are revered for has not aged well at all (see Sgt Peppers and Magical Mystery Tour), imo. In today's music world, the two bands would not be in the same genre.
Beatles were revolutionary and a world-wide phenomenon. Stones were/are the better band, imo.
Beatles most likely had larger influence, though.
Beatles were revolutionary and a world-wide phenomenon. Stones were/are the better band, imo.
Beatles most likely had larger influence, though.
I think the Beatles had a wider body of work with new sounds etc.
Stones for me tho
Stones for me tho
Beatles music far superior. Stones better entertainment.
1. Led Zeppelin
2. Pink Floyd
3. Rush
4. Rolling Stones
5. The Beatles
6. The Who
2. Pink Floyd
3. Rush
4. Rolling Stones
5. The Beatles
6. The Who
Yes BUT no...
Elvis
Velvet Underground
Bob Dylan
Beach Boys
Buddy Holly
Motown
Phil Spector’s Wall Of Sound
Janis Joplin
Jimi Hendrix
The Doors
Elvis
Velvet Underground
Bob Dylan
Beach Boys
Buddy Holly
Motown
Phil Spector’s Wall Of Sound
Janis Joplin
Jimi Hendrix
The Doors
Elvis - Not a band
Velvet Underground - nowhere as big as the others
Bob Dylan - Not a band
Beach Boys - Fair enough
Buddy Holly - Short career, more popular because of crash
Motown - Record Label
Phil Spector’s Wall Of Sound - producer
Janis Joplin - not a band
Jimi Hendrix - Experience was a band but I'll give ya that
The Doors - I'll take every British band I listed over them
Velvet Underground - nowhere as big as the others
Bob Dylan - Not a band
Beach Boys - Fair enough
Buddy Holly - Short career, more popular because of crash
Motown - Record Label
Phil Spector’s Wall Of Sound - producer
Janis Joplin - not a band
Jimi Hendrix - Experience was a band but I'll give ya that
The Doors - I'll take every British band I listed over them
The British “invasion” was just that... HYPE
Outside of Pink Floyd & The Rolling Stones... not much
The Beatles were the first boy band breakup
Get over The Beatles!
Outside of Pink Floyd & The Rolling Stones... not much
The Beatles were the first boy band breakup
Get over The Beatles!
Never understood Zeppelin hate, I immediately disregard someone's music critique if they cannot recognize how brilliantly different the genius of those four were as a band.
As to the original question, Stones over the Beatles, but not by much.
As to the original question, Stones over the Beatles, but not by much.