I'm going Stones. Just watched the unreleased documentary about them called "Cocksucker Blues." (6.75/10 at best) Couple things though. There's a very good chance the Beatles actually have the better songs quantity wise, but they seem like a bunch of miserable cvnts who were so far up their own ass' it's embarrassing... Whereas I'd LOVE to hang out with the Stones. BUT I'd say if you pick the best 15 tracks from each bands catalog... Just their 15 best tunes, the Stones wrote the better of the best. Also, would you go Icarly or Wizards of Waverly Place?
Of the two I pick the Beatles, but love both. If given the choice somewhere else, I'd go with The Who. iCarly all the way.
So, you'd pick the Who over the other two? Interesting curve ball. That being said I can't believe you guys can't separate the original 2. STOP SAYING BOTH EVERYONE!!!!!!!
Beatles. The Stones are OK, I like a lot of their music, but some if it is pretty awful and grossly sexist. The Beatles were not the best guitarists, bassists, keyboardists, drummers in rock music. Their singing is good but others had better voices. What they had, that NO ONE else had, aside from phenomenal charisma, was an incredible variety and creativity. As soon as others started imitating them, they moved onto something new. The Beatles by 1969 were very different from the Beatles of 1963. Whereas I can listen to a newer Stones song and it sounds a lot like the Stones of 30 or 40 years ago. Incidentally, I took a university extension course on Mozart, and the professor said that for variety and creativity, no one has matched Mozart, except the Beatles.
Of course. The question though is what's that worth? What does that mean? Are they more varied? Possibly and probably.... But is that why you like them better? Because they sounded different from beginning to end? I suppose that's really just an opinion though. I do respect the Beatles, I just can't get over their self love. I like the whole Rolling Stones package better.
I appreciate a person with a strong opinion (Your Beatles take). That being said, calling something" overrated" is kind of lazy. I don't even know what that means. BTW who's the first? Dave Matthews Band?
Ya. I think musically they were beyond what either of the other two bands were. Their lyrics were at least as strong as either band too. I just think it's hard to argue against Townshend, Entwistle and Moon musically, and Townshend was a great songwriter.
The Beach Boys over both, but I'd probably pick the Beatles of the two. Both had a lot of great music, but there are just more Beatles songs I enjoy, including at the "top end" (I like the Beatles' ten best more than the Stones' ten best).
So no one else is Stones then yet? FUCK! Thought I made a good case. Let's just say I'd rather be shooting Heroin with Keif at the Chateau Marmont than smoking a bloody hookah with ringo in India. Fuck the Beatles
EVERYONE STOP NAMING OTHER BANDS. This is not a favorite band thread. This is Beatles vs. Stones full package.
Hey, I'm cool with that sentiment. I think they were great, but all this "Beatles invented modern pop music, there would be no <fill in band/genre/society/species> without them" stuff is way overblown. They were one of the first prolific guitar pop bands, but they drew plenty of influence from earlier garage rock, Motown, etc. I think they're excellent, but there are plenty of other bands I enjoy more.
Some writer, I forgot who, said that in retirement homes in a few years the senior citizens will still be arguing Beatles vs. Rolling Stones. I'm listening to Hello Goodbye as I type...
The Stones.. and its not really close. I like the Beatles a lot... but I like my Rock and Roll much dirtier than that. The Stones are the best. "Monkey Man" is probably on my top 5 songs of all time list.
