The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones

[Anonymous]

I know more Beatles songs

[Anonymous]

Beatles.

I want to see a list of their “garbage” songs. I love everyone I’ve heard!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Beatles.

I want to see a list of their “garbage” songs. I love everyone I’ve heard!

I dislike:

Wild Honey Pie
Act Naturally
Bad Boy
I Call Your Name

That’s it. Although to be fair, 2 of those are covers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer listening to the Stones, although I know "importance wise" the Beatles have it.

I say Stones too. I’m one to think Beatles are overrated, maybe because they ended while they were still ahead of the game?

Glad to see some Stones partisans here.

I really think they are appples and oranges, very different music. As someone has said:

The Beatles are the best pop band ever, and Zeppelin are the best Rock and Roll band ever.

Fixed it.

OP here, I love this

Zeppelin’s problem is they didn’t know when to end a song. And they were pretty one note. The Stones had growth, explored different styles of music, their songs have atmosphere and great lyrics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer listening to the Stones, although I know "importance wise" the Beatles have it.

I say Stones too. I’m one to think Beatles are overrated, maybe because they ended while they were still ahead of the game?

Glad to see some Stones partisans here.

I really think they are appples and oranges, very different music. As someone has said:

The Beatles are the best pop band ever, and Zeppelin are the best Rock and Roll band ever.

Fixed it.

OP here, I love this

Zeppelin’s problem is they didn’t know when to end a song. And they were pretty one note. The Stones had growth, explored different styles of music, their songs have atmosphere and great lyrics.

Have you ever listened to Led Zeppelin?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I prefer listening to the Stones, although I know "importance wise" the Beatles have it.

I say Stones too. I’m one to think Beatles are overrated, maybe because they ended while they were still ahead of the game?

Glad to see some Stones partisans here.

I really think they are appples and oranges, very different music. As someone has said:

The Beatles are the best pop band ever, and Zeppelin are the best Rock and Roll band ever.

Fixed it.

OP here, I love this

Zeppelin’s problem is they didn’t know when to end a song. And they were pretty one note. The Stones had growth, explored different styles of music, their songs have atmosphere and great lyrics.

Have you ever listened to Led Zeppelin?

Right.

Of course, the Beatles had more versatility than either of those bands, and did it in 7 years (when you count their truly famous years -- personally I love the 1961-1962 period, but that's just me).

[Anonymous]

To those saying the Beatles weren't an excellent rock n roll band, I present the following:

From their officially released material:
Revolution 1
Back in the USSR
Helter Skelter
One After 909

But really, the following unofficial recording from one of their Star Club performances in late 1962. The sound quality is rough, but they completely rock out. Keep in mind that they were 19-22 years old when this happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJbAMYcNxbE&t=2495s

[Anonymous]

We had this same discussion with friends last year. Wife friend: Stones. Her husband: Beatles. DH & I: Zepp.

Pretty sure they really did sell their souls to the devil in order to come up with some of their music.

[Anonymous]

Beatles all the way! When you think of all of the music that came out of the Beatles in such a short period it is truly incredible. They had the top FIVE songs on the British charts this week in 1964 (according to breakfast with the Beatles). Add to that the brilliant post Beatles work from John, Paul and George. Paul has created original classical music and collaborated with musicians of every genre. He played every instrument on his first solo album and did not end up a junky despite all his fame and fortune.

[Anonymous]

The Beatles by far! But I am a The Who junkie. I still love “Substitute” and “I’m a Boy” and their other songs. My favorite group until they lost Roger Daltry. So ahead of their time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Beatles by far! But I am a The Who junkie. I still love “Substitute” and “I’m a Boy” and their other songs. My favorite group until they lost Roger Daltry. So ahead of their time.

I forgot to add that I am a hardcore George Harrison fan as well as The Who fan.

[Anonymous]

https://youtu.be/h4_eSW6D6sc

[Anonymous]

By far the Stones. Beatles are garbage. Most overrated band ever.

[Anonymous]

I saw the Stones at FedEx field on Weds. it was my tenth time seeing them and it’s always amazing. Sure, they are old but their songs are timeless. You gotta give them credit for their staying power. Having read Keith’s book, I don’t know how any band stays together, much less those guys.

I like the Beatles and I appreciate their contribution to music history, but I also think their music is overrated. If there was one band whose music I could take to a desert island, it would be the Stones.

[Anonymous]

Beatles. On melody alone.

I’m a sucker for melody. Not all songs have it. I’m very impressed by songs that can do more than repeat stanzas of the same melodic structure. Songs that wind (long I) and flow.

Stones... ugh. they have some catchy worms there, but just nothing gets your brain jumping around he way the Beatles songs do. Also something about the Beatles —what is it called — like a declension thing. They were always willing to fall down a half step, and it was WEIRD at the time. But so good, and made way for so much more music.