The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones | Page 2 | Fab Forum

Introducing the inaugural Fab Forum February Fundraiser! Click here for more details.

Please consider registering

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —

— Match —

— Forum Options —

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed sp_TopicIcon
The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
No permission to create posts
24 July 2011
mr. Sun king coming together
Nowhere Land
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 6980
Member Since:
19 September 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

PennyLane said:

mr. Sun king coming together said:

a-hard-days-night-ringo-8Here's a review from our own Joe which tells you about the book more. I'm not going to say the Stones were better but really, they were the other 60's band. The fact remains that they were a killer singles band. Let's Spend the Night Together, Get Off My Cloud, Under My Thumb, Satisfaction and many more. (Although Paint It Black pisses me off).

Why does it piss you off? This is the song thanks to Guitar Hero: Legends of Rock that made me a Stones fan. You know George inspired Brian Jones how to play the sitar right? George is obviously the better player, but Brian deserves his props.

It's a horrible song. The vocals suck, the sitar seems so out of place and the lyrics are insipid.

As if it matters how a man falls down.'

'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.

25 July 2011
The Walrus
Working for the national health
Apple rooftop
Forum Posts: 1036
Member Since:
4 December 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
31 July 2011
Terrace BC Canada
Abbey Road
Forum Posts: 97
Member Since:
26 July 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ah yes, the age-old debate.. The Beatles vs the Stones.    I suppose I've made my preference known merely by the fact that I capitalize "The" for The Beatles... but to me, it's like comparing Apples to PC's.   The Stones are a great riff-driven R&B combo and have some terrific songs, like "Satisfaction", "Jumpin Jack Flash", "Paint It Black" and a host of others.   But most of their memorable songs involve a very strong hook that plays over and over through most of the song -- for example, if you are in a restaurant, as I was recently, where you hear "(This Could Be) The Last Time" on the speakers in the background, you're struck by how many times the main guitar line is played over and over and over... it's a good line, don't get me wrong, but you can OD on the Stones pretty easily -- or at least I can.   But they still came up with great songs -- and Charlie Watts' drumming on "Honky Tonky Women" blows me away every time.   

But song for song, there's no comparison with The Beatles, who had something for every mood and every musical taste, it seemed.  Yeah, The Beatles knew how to riff too ("Day Tripper" for example), but there was so much more to their sound.  And to be a Stones fan, you have to like the sound of Mick Jagger's voice... with The Beatles, you have three very attractive voices to enjoy -- voices that blend extremely well and sound great on their own (and of course Ringo had his own unique sound too).   

The Beatles trump everybody, in my opinion, and the way the world still views this band that stopped recording together in August 1969 is a testament to how extraordinary they will always be.

I've got nothing to say, but it's okay.. GOOD MORNING! GOOD MORNING!! GOOD MORNING!!!
24 November 2011
Rat Salad
Washington DC USA
The Indra
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
22 November 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

It's the kind of argument we had when we were 16 years old: "Who's the best guitarist? Clapton or Hendrix?" Silly, really. It's more about what mood you're in or what culture you identify with than who is best (a quality never defined).  Perhaps education and class, to be honest.

I like the Stones very much.  There is no song like "Sympathy for the Devil." It is unique and without equal. In its wit and structure, it is a rival of any Beatles song. Intelligent, edgy (not a quality of Beatles songs -- thus the argument, I think), and dangerous (ditto). Same with "Street Fighting Man" and many others.

I tried to find some reason to define "better band" and offer measurements. I can't, really. I like the Stones when I'm feeling sexy or angry or alienated or powerful. I like the Beatles when I'm sane and ready to listen. It takes some attention to listen to the Beatles, a certain peace of mind, or else they are just fluffy background music. The Stones just hit you raw, and you go with it.  I think that's where the difference is if you think about it.  It's like listening to rock or classical music to me. One requires attention, the other doesn't.

Given what I just said . . . if you just sort of have the Beatles in the background, you're unlikely to be driven to some emotional pitch as you might when the Stones are on. It's easy for me to hear the Beatles as some kind of "Muzak." I think it's because they never strike that dark, angry chord inside me as the Stones do. The Stones are one-trick ponies, as I said, but as I said, they're very good at it. No band made me want to pick up a guitar and learn a song as the Stones did. "Midnight Rambler" and whatnot. Simple, adolescent, powerful.  4 chords, I think. Mom, look out!

So was Clapton better than Hendrix? I'd rather listen to Hendrix, but I'd rather Clapton were in my band. Stranded on a desert island, I'd rather have the Beatles music than the Stones.

24 November 2011
Happiness is a warm gun
The Indra
Forum Posts: 38
Member Since:
11 September 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I was a huge Stones fan when i was kid. I adored Richards and he was a big influence on my guitar playing. When I started playing in bands as a teenager, people would come up to me after gigs and say "You're like a female Keith Richards!" and I thought it was highest compliment anyone could give me back then.


I don't like them the way I used to--I pretty much refuse to listen to anything after Let It Bleed and of their 60's stuff, about 1/3 of it *at most* has stood the test of time for me. While they were far more of spectacle than the Beatles, from Mick's suggestive stage moves to all the "satanic" nonsense to Altamont to the druggy 70's, they really pale in comparison to the Beatles musically. They tended to settle for being derivative far too often, and despite my youthful admiration for Richards, the dude was quite a lazy guitarist too much of the time. But the one thing that really irks me with the Stones is Mick's lyrics. They usually range from acceptable to gawd awful and can ruin an otherwise decent song.


By comparison, I had to study Beatles song in my music lit for music majors class. They were simply more innovative and pushed themselves more creatively--and they were so consistently. Their influence was far more extensive too.


If I had to sum it up, I'd say: the Stones' music was the product of the 60's, while the Beatles were a major force in defining the 60's through their music.  I think it's easy for people to forget what music was like before the Beatles, as their influence is so familiar to us now that we take a lot of it for granted. But they were actually an anomaly--bands just didn't evolve like they did. Rock music wasn't suppose to be enduring like the Beatles were, and rock musicians certainly weren't suppose to transcend the passing popularity of their hit singles. If you were a recording artist back then, you had your thing that you did well and you did it into the ground--maybe get in 3-4 hit singles, if you were lucky--until the next fad and everyone forgot about you. Even Elvis was slave to that paradigm. The Beatles singlehandedly changed that.

I'm not a girl who misses much.
No permission to create posts
Forum Timezone: America/Chicago

Most Users Ever Online: 597

Currently Online: Annadog40, Sugarplum fairy, Merch, Silly Girl
44 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Top Posters:

meanmistermustard: 17138

Ahhh Girl: 10751

Annadog40: 9751

Zig: 7555

parlance: 7092

mr. Sun king coming together: 6980

Mr. Kite: 6092

Silly Girl: 5814

trcanberra: 5545

Ron Nasty: 4945

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 87

Members: 3334

Moderators: 4

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 3

Forums: 42

Topics: 3815

Posts: 202250

Newest Members:

beatlezoe, nicklav99, pbwriter, leenawilliams, ravenswolf

Moderators: Ahhh Girl: 10751, meanmistermustard: 17138, Zig: 7555, Joe: 4390

Administrators: Joe: 4390, Ellie: 3

Members Birthdays
Today: None
Upcoming: DrBeatle