Jump to content

Welcome to Nightly.Net
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Beatles or the Stones


51 replies to this topic

#1
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,591 posts
Okay, so pretty classic question really.. whom do you prefer?

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.

Opinions?

Edited by Odine, 29 July 2020 - 03:07 PM.


#2
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 465 posts

I like both, and can't argue with your points.  When I was younger I HATED the Beatles, and while far from my favorite band, really liked the Stones.  Now that I am older, I have kind of flipped a bit, and while I still like the Stones, I really have come to appreciate the Beatles, starting with Rubber Soul on through to Let it Be.  Not too into the early stuff that sounds more generic and like most bands of the early 1960s (I wanna hold your hand...blech!), though some of it isn't bad (some of the early early stuff really sounded almost like Rockabilly).   The Beatles' influence is still being felt to this day, but especially during the 1960s to 1990s.  Stones have longevity, but by the late 1970s, they kind of stopped innovating and kept the same sound from then on.  Once all the Beatles went solo, they went into different directions, but I think Paul's Wings was probably the closest thing we had to a 1970s era Beatles.  If John had not died, I have to think we would have seen a reunion in the 1980s, and I have to wonder if they would have gone somewhat new wave, sort of like the Kinks did.  I definitely think they would have done some synth pop, too.


  • Odine +1 this

#3
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

It's the Beatles. I mean the third best song writer in the band wrote several songs better than any Stones song: While My Guitar Gently Weeps, Something, Here Comes the Sun. And that's the third guy. 

 

Your last point is definitely true. John once nearly beat a guy to death for insinuating that he was gay. 


  • Odine +1 this

#4
Justus

Justus

    Member

  • Member
  • 13,117 posts

Okay, so pretty classic question really.. whom do you prefer?

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.

Opinions?

1. Entirely subjective, and on that note, I found the Rolling Stones final two albums of the 60s (Beggars' Banquet and Let it Bleed)leaving them in generally better creative shape than the Beatles last two efforts.

 

3. The Beatles were far from the first rock band to step into the waters of experimentation. As early as 1964, The genesis of The Who creating the rock opera had its roots in 1965 with the early ideas that would become "A Quick One, While He's Away" in '66. We all know about groups like The Animals, The Yardbirds and The Moody Blues going off in very experimental (and creatively cohesive) directions of their own in the same era.

 

 

2. and 4. What? The 60s Rolling Stones started (by Brian Jones) as a serious blues band unlike any other in Europe (even that of his friend Alexis Korner and his influential Blues Incorporated). But their sound did not settle there; it was through Jones that the band had innumerable instruments rarely--if ever associated with rock--transforming many of the group's songs to become classics with a voice unmatched by any other 60s group--including the Beatles. One can argue that the Rolling Stones evolved more than any of the biggest rock acts by the end of the decade, with the possible exception of The Moody Blues.

 

5. Much of the alleged introspection attributed to Harrison is more associated with his 1970s solo years, where he was able to freely express himself as a person and artist more than being framed by being a Beatle.

 

6. Yes, Jagger was a manipulative, jealous ass, but Lennon had a number of unsavory behavioral problems, from habitually sidelining many of Harrison's efforts to get more songs on albums, to his physically abusing first wife Cynthia, barely having anything to do with Julian, to having low opinions about other acts with members who were supposed to be counted among his "friends." Let's not forget his jealousy of / being intimidated by McCartney, to the point where he had tantrums in the studio, started to back away from true collaborations sometime around 1968, and yes, there's the Yoko issue, which caused much friction between Lennon and the rest of the group.

 

7. All members of the Rolling Stones were not "posh art school boys." While Jones was reportedly highly intelligent, he did not pursue college and lived a very rough life from one temporary dwelling to another living in Germany and the UK while perfecting the guitar work that would form the Rolling Stones sound. Growing up, Wyman and his family suffered through World War II, living on rations, going to school in a gas mask, suffering the effects of bombing, with no stable housing. In fact, he has stated that they lived in extreme poverty. Both were far from pampered art school types.


  • Odine +1 this

#5
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

I think with the Beatles it's sometimes even hard to comprehend how short a time they were actually together and popular. Everything they put out was released over 7 years and 2 months. "Please Please Me" was released in Britian on March 22, 1963. "Let It Be" was released on Mary 8, 1970. Then when you consider Let It Be was actually recorded before "Abbey Road" it becomes more like everything they recorded was done in about a 6 and a half year stretch. That's pretty crazy. 

 

I remember on this board quite a while ago there was a thread with the Beatles and someone said they were overrated stating they "probably only have 50 good songs." Well I mean how many bands have 50 good songs? Out of those how many have 50 good songs in 6 years?


  • Dark Wader, Rogue 3 and Odine +1 this

#6
Tank

Tank

    Driver

  • Member
  • 35,454 posts

Stones.

 

I'm that guy that can't stand the Beatles.

 

And yes I GET IT. I know WHY they are important and loved they way they are... I just never liked them. 


  • Darth Krawlie and Odine +1 this

#7
Darth Krawlie

Darth Krawlie

    privileged ****lord

  • Moderators
  • 35,254 posts

Yup. Stones 100%. Beatles have some great songs, no question about it. All time greats. I'd never choose to listen to one over a Stones song, though.


  • Odine +1 this

#8
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 20,016 posts
You wouldnt choose any Beatles song over any Stones song? Thats a big statement. The Stones have some bad stuff.

But, yeah, the Stones have bad stuff because theyve been around forever and done more. Id definitely pick them over the Beatles.

And I would pick early Beatles over late Beatles.
  • Darth Sockimus and Odine +1 this

#9
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 465 posts

Except for maybe Steel Wheels, the Rolling Stones haven't had a good album since 1981's Tattoo You. Seriously. After that, all their stuff sounds the same and blurs together.  And I say that as a Keith Richards fan.



#10
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,553 posts

The Beatles, easily. Doesn't even come anywhere close for me. 

 

The thing I always forget about the Beatles and kind of amazes me is that they were only active for about 10 years. I'm sure there are probably others but I can't think of any bands or artists who've had such diverse, consistent and quality music out in a short span of time, let alone influence music the way they did. 

 

But in saying that, since the Beatles were only for 10 years and the Rolling Stones are still going. That's definitely a factor for me - Rolling Stones might have a lot more subpar material but they have been going a hell of a lot longer, so it's to be expected. And while I've never really gotten into the Stones as much as I probably should have, I'll always respect that they've been going as long as they have, can still put on a great show and probably outsell 95% of artists live. 


  • Odine +1 this

#11
Rogue 3

Rogue 3

    Who is Number 1?

  • Member
  • 2,699 posts

The Beatles for me.    Such a great set of songs they recorded in such as short time as Choc says above.  Crazy having that much superb albums.   Favourite is hard to choose and can change year on year, but current fave is Rubber Soul which marks the shift of tone as it heads towards Revolver and Pepper.

 

Got into them when the Anthology was being made back in the mid 90's - great watch.


  • Odine +1 this

#12
Odine

Odine

    Member

  • Supporters
  • 2,591 posts
Rubber Soul is one of my fav albums too. It's banger after banger that album.

#13
Iceheart

Iceheart

    No.

  • Moderators
  • 20,936 posts

Not even sure why I'm posting in this thread... both and neither?

 

My parents didn't really like either band, so I only grew up with what I heard of them when my parents would turn on the radio. So I... like them both well enough, but aren't really familiar with more than their biggest songs, and haven't been terribly motivated to give either a real listen.


  • Darth Krawlie and Odine +1 this

#14
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 20,016 posts
Its the internet! Its your duty to have a strong opinion without facts or experience.
  • Odine +1 this

#15
Iceheart

Iceheart

    No.

  • Moderators
  • 20,936 posts

Okay! I feel very strongly neutral about both bands!



#16
monkeygirl

monkeygirl

    Advad Disagerer

  • Administrator
  • 22,374 posts

I think to truly appreciate The Beatles, you had to be alive and into pop music before they showed up because they absolutely changed forever the popular music landscape, entirely. If you grew up after the mid 60s, they're just the band that was shoved down your throat everywhere.

 

"The Stones are a one trick band." SO. disagree. When the band was all about Brian Jones, they were really focusing on sounding like an American Blues band and they were mostly a cover band. Then they started writing their own material. They were one of the first rock bands to use a fuzzbox, they used marimbas on Under My Thumb and even went through a disco phase.

 

I see the differences basically in songwriting and the bands' overall genres as the biggest differences; the Beatles were more into skiffle and rockabilly at thrie roots and became a psychedelic, hippie-ish band in the late 60s. The Stones were hardcore Blues at their start and relied on Jagger and Richards' personas to propel them into the 21st century

 

Also, why have these 2 been pitted against each other for decades? Has there ever been a non-rivalry like this created in music but NOT by the bands themselves?


  • Iceheart +1 this

#17
Jedigoat

Jedigoat

    Is this it?

  • Member
  • 14,214 posts
Rolling Stones by a mile. By a landslide. I'd take the Stones and the Who before I'd even consider the Beatles.
  • Darth Krawlie +1 this

#18
Iceheart

Iceheart

    No.

  • Moderators
  • 20,936 posts

 

Also, why have these 2 been pitted against each other for decades? Has there ever been a non-rivalry like this created in music but NOT by the bands themselves?

 

 

This is what I've extrapolated from listening to opinionated boomers talk about music all my life...

 

Like you said, the Beatles changed everything. But the Stones came in right behind them. Before they went full psychedelic, the Beatles were awfully clean-cut, Tiger Beat cover boy types. Mick Jagger was just as popular with the girls, but he was the "bad boy" antithesis of the Beatles. Saying you're a Beatles guy or a Stones guy had more to do about the image you were projecting about yourself, like how modern pop fans are usually more preppy with their style and interests, while rock fans are more the neo-grunge types. But otherwise, their music is apples and oranges.

 

And then, of course, there were the proto-hipsters like my dad, who leaned far more into the actual blues scene, and prog rock like The Moody Blues and Procul Harum for getting high to, and therefore didn't need either mainstream option.

 

I think there have been twitter wars between stan armies that would technically meet your criteria for this, but they're not nearly as iconic and just never will be.


  • monkeygirl +1 this

#19
Zathras

Zathras

    Not The One

  • Members
  • 465 posts

Since the Who came up, I have to bring up Zeppelin and Floyd... Pink Floyd> Led Zeppelin> The Rolling Stones = Beatles >The Who.  Ten years ago, I would have rated Beatles last.  


  • Dark Wader and Darth Ender +1 this

#20
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 20,016 posts
The Stones and the Beatles get compared because theres nobody else at that level of cultural impact and awareness. Seriously, try to think of one. The Who is great, but nowhere near that level of cultural saturation. Nirvana was huge, but they didnt have the cultural staying power. And in that regard, the Stones are a very distant second to the Beatles. It barely counts, its so distant. The Beatles Anthology and TV special(s?) was a huge cultural moment, and that was decades after they broke up.

I dont love the Beatles, but theyre the most culturally important musical act of the past 70 years. You could argue their influences, but theyre only significant because they influenced the Beatles.
  • Odine +1 this

#21
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

My favorite Stones song is by far "She's a Rainbow" which is about as unlike most of their work as it possibly can be. 


  • Brett and Iceheart +1 this

#22
Brett

Brett

    ...

  • Member
  • 1,981 posts

I'm a big fan of both, but: Beatles. They were more versatile.

I love Mick, he has a lot of flair and showmanship, but his actual singing voice is ****. Meaning, the Stones' few attempts at ballads were usually pretty tongue in cheek, bordering on cringey.
And item 2: Their Satanic Majesties Request. Again, I love the album, but it's a giant fan love letter to Sgt. Peppers. 



#23
Brando

Brando

    83% Muppet

  • Admin
  • 20,016 posts
I think a more is where The Beach Boys fit in. Pet Sounds is one of the greatest albums of all time.
  • monkeygirl +1 this

#24
The Choc

The Choc

    Member

  • Member
  • 9,363 posts

The Beach Boys belong in any discussion. It's very interesting how all the acts of that era pushed each other. When Brian Wilson first heard "Strawberry Fields Forever" while driving in his car he pulled over, started to cry and said to himself "they got there first."



#25
Dark Wader

Dark Wader

    Member

  • Member
  • 2,553 posts

Since the Who came up, I have to bring up Zeppelin and Floyd... Pink Floyd> Led Zeppelin> The Rolling Stones = Beatles >The Who.  Ten years ago, I would have rated Beatles last.  

I’d shuffle around the positions on a couple of them but Pink Floyd for me would also definitely be at the top. The run of albums from Dark Side of the Moon up to the Wall is pretty unparalleled. If anything I think they’re a closer comparison to the Beatles in terms of music and influence than the Stones.  


  • Zathras +1 this



Reply to this topic