Beatles or Rolling Stones
-
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:25 am
Beatles or Rolling Stones
So for those of us over 45, who would you say is your favorite of the two.
- chumpzilla
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:04 am
- Location: Philly
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I'm disqualified on grounds of age, but if I had a say it'd be Beatles.
( ... even though I do like the Stones, a lot.)
( ... even though I do like the Stones, a lot.)
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
That's like having to choose between water and beer.
- bertilak
- Posts: 10725
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
For me, it is a matter of what general mood I am in.
Beatles for light/happy moods.
Stones for dark/serious moods.
But there is some overlap. (e.g. Stones' Honky-Tonk Woman, Beatles' While My Guitar Gently Weeps)
Gotta have BOTH!
Beatles for light/happy moods.
Stones for dark/serious moods.
But there is some overlap. (e.g. Stones' Honky-Tonk Woman, Beatles' While My Guitar Gently Weeps)
Gotta have BOTH!
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles for talent - Stones for entertainment!
If an idea did not arrive in a person's mind via logic, it cannot be changed by logic.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Put Beatles on a higher plateau just because of timing and their overall impact.
But I still listen to the Stones all the time, even this morning on the train I had Let It Bleed. Not all great, but late 60's and early 70's as good as anything out there. Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exile, and Sticky Fingers is a run that sets the bar very high.
But I still listen to the Stones all the time, even this morning on the train I had Let It Bleed. Not all great, but late 60's and early 70's as good as anything out there. Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exile, and Sticky Fingers is a run that sets the bar very high.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
neither. Led Zeppelin, without a doubt.
I'm only 32 though... maybe my vote shouldn't count.
I'm only 32 though... maybe my vote shouldn't count.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles. Truth to tell, however, I liked the Animals (with Eric Burden) over the two of them.
Gordon
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Back in the day, Beatles with the Stones a close 2nd. After seeing them in 1972, Stones became my favorite.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles. But I liked Simon and Garfunkel better.
Chaz |
|
“Money is better than poverty, if only for financial reasons." Woody Allen |
|
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
- cheese_breath
- Posts: 11786
- Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles. They paved the way for the other English groups. I never heard a Beatles song I didn't like.
The surest way to know the future is when it becomes the past.
- LonePrairie
- Posts: 282
- Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:20 pm
- Location: North Dakota
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I used to like the Beatles better but now I prefer the Stones.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles.
I am not 45, but wonder why this is even a question.
I am not 45, but wonder why this is even a question.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles.However, Can"t You Hear Me Knocking by the Stones is a great song.Even though The Doors put out 6 albums in 54 months,I think their the best.But you would not have thought that reading the line below.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I agree... Beatles are the summer afternoon with a cool breeze..... Stones are a dark foggy funky night.....bertilak wrote:For me, it is a matter of what general mood I am in.
Beatles for light/happy moods.
Stones for dark/serious moods.
But there is some overlap. (e.g. Stones' Honky-Tonk Woman, Beatles' While My Guitar Gently Weeps)
Gotta have BOTH!
|
Rob |
Its a dangerous business going out your front door. - J.R.R.Tolkien
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
One night in the early sixties just after the Beatles introduced "I Want to Hold Your Hand," I was riding with my teammates to a church basketball league game and the song came over the radio in the station wagon our coach drove to the gym. I thought it incredibly inane at the time. As a young teen what did I know? Later, I came to change my notions dramatically, particularly with the Sgt. Pepper and White albums, and grew to love the band.
While certain Stones' songs are the best, as a group my vote goes to the Beatles.
While certain Stones' songs are the best, as a group my vote goes to the Beatles.
The fundamental things apply as time goes by -- Herman Hupfeld
- JupiterJones
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles. No question.
The Stones aren't even close.
JJ
The Stones aren't even close.
JJ
"Stay on target! Stay on target!"
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I'm not over 45 but I have listened to both groups extensively throughout my life since my dad was a musician. I would have to say the Beetles personally. But both were such pioneers and you can easily hear their influence on todays musicians. Groups like Jet and The Stokes sound a lot like the Stones/Beatles and groups like The Shins sound just like The Beach Boys.
-
- Posts: 3968
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles, but you gotta give the Stones credit for hanging on.
They’re the Eveready bunny of rock and roll.
Thanks
SP-diceman
They’re the Eveready bunny of rock and roll.
Thanks
SP-diceman
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I'd have to concur The stones keep on rolling like the walking dead. NICE first OP, Welcome!SP-diceman wrote:Beatles, but you gotta give the Stones credit for hanging on.
They’re the Eveready bunny of rock and roll.
Thanks
SP-diceman
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles, in spades.
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I have: Revolution 9 and their cover of Mr. Moonlight.cheese_breath wrote:I never heard a Beatles song I didn't like.
Still, two out of a bazillion ain't bad.
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles rule. Their collective creativity from start to finish was amazing. I bet that 200 years from now,
people will still listen to those songs occasionally. Not quite as extraordinary as Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, but
pretty close.
- Brian
people will still listen to those songs occasionally. Not quite as extraordinary as Bach, Mozart, or Beethoven, but
pretty close.
- Brian
- market timer
- Posts: 6535
- Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:42 am
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Pink Floyd vs. Beatles would be more difficult for me. I never liked the Stones.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
They're both great but I'm pretty tired of both. I've moved on to other music.
- FrugalInvestor
- Posts: 6214
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:20 pm
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles
Have a plan, stay the course and simplify. Then ignore the noise!
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The good boys or the bad boys? Tough choice. I guess I'll go with the Beatles, at least until the sun goes down.
I, too, am pretty tired of Beatles and Stones music. The Stones have been a parody of their younger selves for years. McCartney has had some moments.
I am interested in how these old rockers are navigating their senior years. Maybe I'm looking for some pointers that I can use. Some mornings I feel like I've been living on the road for decades.
I, too, am pretty tired of Beatles and Stones music. The Stones have been a parody of their younger selves for years. McCartney has had some moments.
I am interested in how these old rockers are navigating their senior years. Maybe I'm looking for some pointers that I can use. Some mornings I feel like I've been living on the road for decades.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Always felt the Beatles were future elevator music (and I was right).
So, it would be the Stones.
Though Led Zeppelin trumps both of them.
So, it would be the Stones.
Though Led Zeppelin trumps both of them.
- JupiterJones
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Hey, I like Revolution #9!magician wrote:I have: Revolution 9 and their cover of Mr. Moonlight.cheese_breath wrote:I never heard a Beatles song I didn't like.
Still, two out of a bazillion ain't bad.
Now Wild Honey Pie, on the other hand... Ugh!
JJ
"Stay on target! Stay on target!"
-
- Posts: 926
- Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:05 pm
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I hadn't heard Beatles or the Stones till I had kids (I was born and grew up in a non-english speaking country - never heard any pop or rock or much of any western music growing up). But my kids (10, 10 and 14) listen exclusively to the Beatles. They have the entire beatles collection loaded on their ipods. 2 of them just started learning guitar. The first song they wanted to learn was "Hey Jude" - and I'm sure that will be followed by another beatles song and then another. I find it pretty unbelievable that music from 50 years ago captivates 10 year olds this much !
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Not even a question, Beatles. I think the Stones are WAY overrated.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
That's good. I vote Beatles.R-Man wrote:Beatles for talent - Stones for entertainment!
Even educators need education. And some can be hard headed to the point of needing time out.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles for the mainstream folks.
Stones for the old hippies who have yet to grow up. :lol:
Stones for the old hippies who have yet to grow up. :lol:
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I'm a little under the age limit, but I've said it before and I will say it again:
Exile on Main Street is one of the greatest rock and roll albums of all time and "Happy" and "Tumblin' Dice" the only songs on it that got any radio play.
Exile on Main Street is one of the greatest rock and roll albums of all time and "Happy" and "Tumblin' Dice" the only songs on it that got any radio play.
Guilty! :peaceHueyLD wrote:Beatles for the mainstream folks.
Stones for the old hippies who have yet to grow up. :lol:
-
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:00 pm
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The beatles are " top 40/pop" The Stones are R&B Rockn Roll. Whoever started this thread may be too young to know this. So which do you lke better? Top 40 type music or Rock n Roll ? The Stones. Greatest Rock n Roll band ever. The Beatles the greatest top 40 band ever.
Joe
Joe
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatle evolved into much more than a top40 band. The did start out that way. The rocked pretty well in Let it Be.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles did it first, but the Stones did it longer.
And both are a notch below Led Zeppelin. Any doubters should buy the live compilation of LZ "How the West Was Won" - best R&R band ever.
And both are a notch below Led Zeppelin. Any doubters should buy the live compilation of LZ "How the West Was Won" - best R&R band ever.
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
[Content removed -- mod oldcomputerguy]RonV wrote:One night in the early sixties just after the Beatles introduced "I Want to Hold Your Hand," I was riding with my teammates to a church basketball league game and the song came over the radio in the station wagon our coach drove to the gym. I thought it incredibly inane at the time. As a young teen what did I know? Later, I came to change my notions dramatically, particularly with the Sgt. Pepper and White albums, and grew to love the band.
While certain Stones' songs are the best, as a group my vote goes to the Beatles.
Having heard the Beatles as background music my entire life, I didn't really appreciate them until I was an adult. Really refreshing to learn how a musical genius reacted upon first hearing them. (Have no idea what Dylan's reaction to hearing the Rolling Stones was -- guess it was favorable or at least shared and respected influences, given his best song.)
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Beatles.
But I do like the Stones better now than I did then. Staying power has to count for something. Keith Richards is still alive! I can see Mick...on stage...with a walker.
But I do like the Stones better now than I did then. Staying power has to count for something. Keith Richards is still alive! I can see Mick...on stage...with a walker.
-
- Posts: 3968
- Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
Lets not forget the Beatles also gave us:
Wings, Paul McCartney, John Lennon/Plastic Ono band, Julian Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and his All-Starr band.
Technically the Beatles didn’t last as long as the Stones, but they didn’t stop making music.
Thanks
SP-diceman
Wings, Paul McCartney, John Lennon/Plastic Ono band, Julian Lennon, George Harrison, Ringo Starr and his All-Starr band.
Technically the Beatles didn’t last as long as the Stones, but they didn’t stop making music.
Thanks
SP-diceman
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles
In addition to my 45s and LPs for both groups I have 2.7GB of Beatles music on my iTunes. Although the Rolling Stones released much more music I "only" have 1.8GB of their music on iTunes. Mostly because I only went with their recent reissues, which I highly recommend.
For The Beatles I have mono versions, stereo versions, remasters, etc. I have anywhere from 4 to 10 "versions" of most songs.
In addition to my 45s and LPs for both groups I have 2.7GB of Beatles music on my iTunes. Although the Rolling Stones released much more music I "only" have 1.8GB of their music on iTunes. Mostly because I only went with their recent reissues, which I highly recommend.
For The Beatles I have mono versions, stereo versions, remasters, etc. I have anywhere from 4 to 10 "versions" of most songs.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I was pretty young at the time, but the early "commercial" Beatles was top-40. Starting around the time of "Help", and really kicking in for "Rubber Soul", the Beatles had mostly shed the top-40, commercialized music of the Brian Epstein era. Some of the most innovative music of the time, and still stands the test of time, so to speak.
Really, though, if you exclude that early British Invasion period, the Beatles and the Stones were highly influenced by many of the same American rockers and bluesmen, and as bar bands, before fame and fortune, played very similar music.
Anyway, not "better" necessarily, but I like the Beatles slightly more.
A musician friend and I were watching Scorsese's "Gimme Shelter" recently, and during one scene, wherein the Stones were beginning to rehearse for a tour, they had a loose-leaf binder full of songs, and were deciding on the set list for the tour. We marveled as they turned page after page in that binder, and we recognized "every" song. They could have played for several hours before running out of "hits", at least in the album-rock sense, if not top-40.
Really, though, if you exclude that early British Invasion period, the Beatles and the Stones were highly influenced by many of the same American rockers and bluesmen, and as bar bands, before fame and fortune, played very similar music.
Anyway, not "better" necessarily, but I like the Beatles slightly more.
A musician friend and I were watching Scorsese's "Gimme Shelter" recently, and during one scene, wherein the Stones were beginning to rehearse for a tour, they had a loose-leaf binder full of songs, and were deciding on the set list for the tour. We marveled as they turned page after page in that binder, and we recognized "every" song. They could have played for several hours before running out of "hits", at least in the album-rock sense, if not top-40.
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
The Beatles, of course. and The Who. and Small Faces...and The Rolling stones.
I love British Invasion music.
But The Beatles were definitely the top.
I love British Invasion music.
But The Beatles were definitely the top.
- bertilak
- Posts: 10725
- Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 5:23 pm
- Location: East of the Pecos, West of the Mississippi
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
One of my favorite, but short-lived, bands is (was?) The Traveling Wilburys.
Now this band had:
I have a compilation that includes a DVD with some commentary by all except Roy Orbison (RIP). I think it was Tom Petty who explained that they all wrote music and lyrics and they all "auditioned" for the various vocal parts. Petty said it was intimidating for one's lyrics to be compared to Dylan's, one's vocals to be compared to Orbison's, and one's tunes to be compared to Harrison's!
Now this band had:
- Bob Dylan
Jeff Lynne
Roy Orbison
Tom Petty
I have a compilation that includes a DVD with some commentary by all except Roy Orbison (RIP). I think it was Tom Petty who explained that they all wrote music and lyrics and they all "auditioned" for the various vocal parts. Petty said it was intimidating for one's lyrics to be compared to Dylan's, one's vocals to be compared to Orbison's, and one's tunes to be compared to Harrison's!
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
- JupiterJones
- Posts: 3623
- Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
- Location: Nashville, TN
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I don't know... that's a pretty big oversimplification. There are Beatles songs that were pretty darn rock-and-roll ("Helter Skelter", "Revolution", "I Want You/She's So Heavy"... not to mention the early rock covers like "Rock and Roll Music", "Boys", "Twist and Shout", etc.)troglodyte wrote:The beatles are " top 40/pop" The Stones are R&B Rockn Roll. Whoever started this thread may be too young to know this. So which do you lke better? Top 40 type music or Rock n Roll ? The Stones. Greatest Rock n Roll band ever. The Beatles the greatest top 40 band ever.
There were also plenty of Beatles songs that were miles away from Top 40. If you hear something like "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "I Am the Walrus" on the radio, it's because they're now famous Beatles songs, not because they're "Top 40". (TEchnically, "Walrus" only got to #56 on the Billboard charts, and I don't think "Tomorrow" was ever even a single, was it?)
And, of course, the Stones weren't 100% rock either ("Angie", "Wild Horses"). Nor were they above pandering to the Top 40 crowd ("Miss You").
JJ
"Stay on target! Stay on target!"
- DocHolliday
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:07 pm
- Location: Ohio
Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones
I am not quite old enough to vote at 43 but I will throw my 2 cents in anyway.
Beatles are much better than the Stones in my book. That is saying something because the Stones are great. Since Zep keeps coming up in posts, I too will say that they are easily my favorite out of those 3. Page's guitar work still blows me away.
Beatles are much better than the Stones in my book. That is saying something because the Stones are great. Since Zep keeps coming up in posts, I too will say that they are easily my favorite out of those 3. Page's guitar work still blows me away.