Beatles or Rolling Stones

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
Topic Author
cyclinggirl
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2011 9:25 am

Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by cyclinggirl »

So for those of us over 45, who would you say is your favorite of the two.
User avatar
Midpack
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 9:34 am
Location: NC

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Midpack »

Fab four über alles...maybe a poll next time.
You only live once...
User avatar
chumpzilla
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Philly

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by chumpzilla »

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.)
User avatar
Igglesman
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Igglesman »

Stones.
KyleAAA
Posts: 9498
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by KyleAAA »

That's like having to choose between water and beer.
User avatar
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

Post by bertilak »

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!
May neither drought nor rain nor blizzard disturb the joy juice in your gizzard. -- Squire Omar Barker (aka S.O.B.), the Cowboy Poet
User avatar
R-Man
Posts: 130
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:39 pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by R-Man »

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.
swaption
Posts: 1245
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:48 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by swaption »

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.
User avatar
tat2ng
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Michigan
Contact:

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by tat2ng »

neither. Led Zeppelin, without a doubt.
I'm only 32 though... maybe my vote shouldn't count.
gkaplan
Posts: 7034
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by gkaplan »

Beatles. Truth to tell, however, I liked the Animals (with Eric Burden) over the two of them.
Gordon
golfnut
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 9:22 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by golfnut »

Back in the day, Beatles with the Stones a close 2nd. After seeing them in 1972, Stones became my favorite.
chaz
Posts: 13604
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:44 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by chaz »

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
User avatar
cheese_breath
Posts: 11786
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 7:08 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by cheese_breath »

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.
User avatar
LonePrairie
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 7:20 pm
Location: North Dakota

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by LonePrairie »

I used to like the Beatles better but now I prefer the Stones.
EStreet33
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 9:04 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by EStreet33 »

The Beatles.

I am not 45, but wonder why this is even a question.
bearcub
Posts: 1118
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:54 am
Location: Twilight Zone

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by bearcub »

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. :)
User avatar
rob
Posts: 5247
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 5:49 pm
Location: Here

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by rob »

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!
I agree... Beatles are the summer afternoon with a cool breeze..... Stones are a dark foggy funky night.....
| Rob | Its a dangerous business going out your front door. - J.R.R.Tolkien
User avatar
FabLab
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by FabLab »

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.
The fundamental things apply as time goes by -- Herman Hupfeld
User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by JupiterJones »

Beatles. No question.

The Stones aren't even close.

JJ
"Stay on target! Stay on target!"
Balance
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:27 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Balance »

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.
SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by SP-diceman »

Beatles, but you gotta give the Stones credit for hanging on.
They’re the Eveready bunny of rock and roll.



Thanks
SP-diceman
User avatar
norookie
Posts: 3016
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 1:55 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by norookie »

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
I'd have to concur :beer The stones keep on rolling like the walking dead. :D NICE first OP, Welcome!
" Wealth usually leads to excess " Cicero 55 b.c
User avatar
magician
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 1:08 am
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Contact:

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by magician »

Beatles, in spades.
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
User avatar
magician
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 1:08 am
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Contact:

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by magician »

cheese_breath wrote:I never heard a Beatles song I didn't like.
I have: Revolution 9 and their cover of Mr. Moonlight.

Still, two out of a bazillion ain't bad.
Simplify the complicated side; don't complify the simplicated side.
Pacific
Posts: 1609
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 7:19 pm
Location: Lost in the middle of the Pacific

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Pacific »

Beatles
User avatar
brisni
Posts: 115
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 12:45 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by brisni »

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
User avatar
market timer
Posts: 6535
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 1:42 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by market timer »

Pink Floyd vs. Beatles would be more difficult for me. I never liked the Stones.
E-M-H
Posts: 126
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 7:13 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by E-M-H »

They're both great but I'm pretty tired of both. I've moved on to other music.
User avatar
FrugalInvestor
Posts: 6214
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 11:20 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by FrugalInvestor »

Beatles
Have a plan, stay the course and simplify. Then ignore the noise!
BertB
Posts: 84
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:30 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by BertB »

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.
User avatar
Rob5TCP
Posts: 3812
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:34 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Rob5TCP »

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.
User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by JupiterJones »

magician wrote:
cheese_breath wrote:I never heard a Beatles song I didn't like.
I have: Revolution 9 and their cover of Mr. Moonlight.

Still, two out of a bazillion ain't bad.
Hey, I like Revolution #9!

Now Wild Honey Pie, on the other hand... Ugh!

JJ
"Stay on target! Stay on target!"
cheapskate
Posts: 926
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:05 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by cheapskate »

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 !
snyder66
Posts: 1055
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by snyder66 »

Not even a question, Beatles. I think the Stones are WAY overrated.
rustymutt
Posts: 4001
Joined: Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:03 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by rustymutt »

R-Man wrote:Beatles for talent - Stones for entertainment!
That's good. I vote Beatles.
Even educators need education. And some can be hard headed to the point of needing time out.
User avatar
HueyLD
Posts: 9789
Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:30 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by HueyLD »

Beatles for the mainstream folks.

Stones for the old hippies who have yet to grow up. :lol:
User avatar
Swamproot
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:10 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Swamproot »

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.
HueyLD wrote:Beatles for the mainstream folks.

Stones for the old hippies who have yet to grow up. :lol:
Guilty! :D 8-) :peace
troglodyte
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 6:00 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by troglodyte »

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
snyder66
Posts: 1055
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:46 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by snyder66 »

The Beatle evolved into much more than a top40 band. The did start out that way. The rocked pretty well in Let it Be.
fishndoc
Posts: 2327
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 11:50 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by fishndoc »

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.
" Successful investing involves doing just a few things right, and avoiding serious mistakes." - J. Bogle
Harold
Posts: 3154
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:50 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Harold »

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.
[Content removed -- mod oldcomputerguy]

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.)
rich
Posts: 933
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2007 6:51 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by rich »

Not over 45. Stones by a mile.
Best regards, | Rich
User avatar
Dinero
Posts: 307
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:34 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Dinero »

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.
SP-diceman
Posts: 3968
Joined: Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:17 am

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by SP-diceman »

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. :D


Technically the Beatles didn’t last as long as the Stones, but they didn’t stop making music.



Thanks
SP-diceman
User avatar
bru
Posts: 1013
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 6:32 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by bru »

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.
HFWR
Posts: 88
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:27 pm
Location: Tx

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by HFWR »

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.
User avatar
Boglenaut
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:41 pm

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by Boglenaut »

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.
User avatar
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

Post by bertilak »

One of my favorite, but short-lived, bands is (was?) The Traveling Wilburys.

Now this band had:
  • Bob Dylan
    Jeff Lynne
    Roy Orbison
    Tom Petty
That would be enough, but the driving force and organizer of the band was George Harrison.

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
User avatar
JupiterJones
Posts: 3623
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm
Location: Nashville, TN

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by JupiterJones »

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.
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.)

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!"
User avatar
DocHolliday
Posts: 286
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 5:07 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Beatles or Rolling Stones

Post by DocHolliday »

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.
Post Reply