|
|
Post by Erik Rupp on Sept 11, 2009 9:42:14 GMT -5
This was a friendly rivalry back in the 60's, but while the Stones survived the 60's the Beatles did not.
But which band do you like more? The Beatles were certainly more groundbreaking, but the Stones brought the Blues influence back into Rock (along with The Yardbirds, Cream, Hendrix, and Zeppelin).
There's no question that both bands were great, but I tend to prefer the Stones' style (although there are probably 10 or 15 Beatles songs that I like more than almost any Stones song).
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Sept 11, 2009 18:32:40 GMT -5
Have to go with the Beatles. They didn't survive, but that can be said of a lot of groups with a ton of talent since talent equals ego. But jeez, given some of the shit the Stones were putting out in the late '70s and '80s, such as "Angie", maybe they shouldn't have survived.
=Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by Carr99 on Sept 12, 2009 18:49:52 GMT -5
Figured I’d take on the age old question of Beatles vs. Stones for my first post. For me The Beatles win this going away. I respect and like the Stones, but The Beatles are just far and above The Stones and basically every other band/artist. The sheer amount of excellent songs that The Beatles churned out, time after time, song after song, in a relatively short time-frame, is almost hard to fathom and certainly was never approached by any other band in my opinion. The Beatles had rarely a clunker on any of their albums. Yes there was the odd misstep, but I don’t think they ever really had much of what is commonly called filler. They were self-indulgent at times but even songs not considered their best were mostly painstakingly worked on and thought out. There weren’t throwaways really. To be able to create song after song that have lasted and will carry on for generations amidst all the fray and mania that they had to endure, pretty much says it all. As far as survival, there is certainly something to be said for longevity but give me what The Beatles did in 10 years vs. most of what the Stones have done over the last 45 years. It's cool that the Stones still surface from time to time but I'd be hard pressed to name anything worthwhile they have put out since Steel Wheels or something. To me, the Stones have always been a solid rock band, nothing more or less, but they just are not on the same level as The Beatles…I’ve always felt that The Beatles stand alone above the rest.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwshooter on Oct 1, 2009 12:38:37 GMT -5
A bit apples and oranges. Love 20 -30 core Beatles songs. The Rolling Stones from 1969-1973 were the greatest rock n roll band in the World. My favorite band of all time. However, also the band to have destroyed their legacy the most. After 1973, it was no longer about the music, but all about the show. They got a very mediocre guitar player in Ronnie Wood and they became shadows of who they were. If I listen to the live version of Sympathy for the Devil from the 1969's Get your YaYas Out.... and then listen to the same song from that garbage film by Scorsese (sp. ?) about the Stones from a couple years ago, it makes me depressed. The Stones should have left in the early 70's just like Zeppelin to retain some integrity.
|
|
