I like em both, but I'm much more of a Beatles fan than a fan of the Rolling Stones. And this is why.
1. Beatles write better songs. That **** could be scientificly proven I'm sure, with the exception of the Ringo numbers, but even they have a very naive charm.
2. Beatles have more sophisticated harmonies and melody. I mean, their earlier songs were more simplistic but as they grew into their craft their songwriting became increasingly complex with complicated vocal harmonies. Where as the stones kind of kept on bashing out the same blues numbers their whole career...which leads me to
3... The Beatles went off the deep end with experimentation. Not only in LSD sense but I mean sonically. They invented so many little techniques, (like sampling and overdubs), interesting instrumentation, weird pentameters. They basically wrote Chemical Brothers tunes ("Tomorrow Never Knows") 40 or 50 years before the chemical brothers existed. And they nearly invented heavy metal with "Helter Skelter".
4. The Stones are a one trick band. Admittedly it's a very good trick, listening to old American blues, pillaging it for all it's worth and selling it back to American teenagers eager to gobble it up. If it weren't for the Stones Muddy Waters and a lot of those old blues guys wouldn't have half the recognition they got in their later "careers". (I use quote marks cause they'd not think of it in those terms). But they (the Stones) found their jam and flogged it for 60 years. Got lost in the 80s in a cloud of cocaine powder and white denim and have been trading on nostalgia ever since.
5. The Beatles had George Harrison. Probably one of the coolest humans to walk the face of the earth. Charlie Watts was pretty cool I admit, and Keith Richards as charming as he is doesn't have the introspection and grace of Georgie boy.
6. The stones have Mick Jagger. And that guy is a ****. Admittedly Paul McCartney is a bit of a plonker and John Lennon could be a c*** but Mick Jagger man... Next level hubris.
7. And finally this is something a lot of people get wrong. They think of the Rolling Stones as the tougher of the two bands, or the bad boys. But it was the Beatles who were the hard working class lads from Liverpool. Proper Scousers like. They were the hard ones. Paul was probably a bit soft but Ringo, John and George would definitely have been a handful if there were scuffles. Hell, someone broke into George's home in the 80s or 90s and he fought off the home invader, who stabbed him a few times on the way out, and lived to tell the tale. It was the Rolling Stones who were the polite, posh art school boys from Richmond. Basically if the stones and the Beatles were to have a fight the Beatles would totally throw down. Of course that is a ridiculous thing to say as they all turned into pacifists and got into spiritualism and that... Damn another reason I love the Beatles more.
Anyway. I still like the Stones music. They definitely have swagger. And the Beatles definitely sound distinctly more British. So again, I do like them both very much. But if I had to listen to only one album of either band for the rest of my life itd totally be Abbey Road.
Edited by Odine, 29 July 2020 - 03:07 PM.