Log In
Register
12.01am
1 November 2013
Offline
Maybe the stones vs Beatles is a quality vs quantity thing?
12.06am
21 January 2014
Offline The quantity being the old boys are still steel wheeling ,soon to be the rolling headstones. and no the quantity versus quality arguement is not the same thing.
12.08am
21 January 2014
Offline I like some stones mostly the stuff with Mick Taylor, one of the top 3 British blues men.
1.23am
1 December 2009
Offline
Getting kinda sick of this dichotomy…so what if the Stones weren’t as good as the Beatles? They were better than most bands have a right to be.
I don’t think any Rolling Stones partisans have ever showed up here and started trolling…that’d be kinda interesting.
Give a listen to Aftermath! Released several months before Revolver and tried a few innovations that even THAT undisputed let’s-try-anything masterpiece never got around to! (Not necessarily with such fully successful results, mind you.)
The following people thank vonbontee for this post:
Starr Shine?, Mr. KiteGEORGE: In fact, The Detroit Sound. JOHN: In fact, yes. GEORGE: In fact, yeah. Tamla-Motown artists are our favorites. The Miracles. JOHN: We like Marvin Gaye. GEORGE: The Impressions PAUL & GEORGE: Mary Wells. GEORGE: The Exciters. RINGO: Chuck Jackson. JOHN: To name but eighty.
1.28am
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Annadog40 said
Maybe the stones vs Beatles is a quality vs quantity thing?
I doubt it as how much a band releases or how long they are together for should never be a reason for receiving plaudits. Status Quo have been going since the mid-60’s and virtually their entire output is utter crap. Cliff Richard has been around the mid-50’s and i’d argue all day long that his music is dreadful.
The Beatles material far surpasses that of The Stones through-out the 60’s and from the mid-to-late 70’s onwards the Stones catalogue is very unstable quality-wise. So for 5 years or so of material you elevate them above The Beatles overall? Eh, no.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.29am
28 May 2014
Offline I think the Stones are okay (they even have their own songwriting partnership). It’s just that they trashed themselves and don’t stand up to the Beatles. Comparing the Beatles to the Rolling Stones is like comparing butter to lard. They both do the same job, but one is so much better. Take a guess which one.
The following people thank thisbirdhasflown for this post:
MimiBy hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
9.23am
2 April 2014
Offline Both of these bands are wiped out by One Direction.
The following people thank MrMoonlight for this post:
Starr Shine?, Mimi3.43pm
5 May 2014
Offline MrMoonlight said
Both of these bands are wiped out by One Direction.
totally. No competition. And then there is Justin Bieber. 
but anyway back on topic. The Stones were more or less trying to imitate the Beatles for a long time, making me lose most of my respect for them. There isn’t a comparison in my opinion, although people tend to think that they are in the same league. The Beatles have singing ability, flexibility, and over-all musical talent that far outweighs the stones. Besides, the Beatles are much better looking, wouldn’t you say?
We were just trying to write songs about prostitutes and lesbians
3.46pm
1 November 2013
Offline The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
Mimi11.08pm
28 May 2014
Offline Apparently, the Fabs didn’t have a studio on a truck , and the Stones made it on Decca.
By hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
11.46pm
5 May 2014
Offline true true
We were just trying to write songs about prostitutes and lesbians
11.47pm
28 May 2014
Offline Wait a second-who recommended the Stones to Decca? It could only be George Harrison !
By hook or by crook, I'll be last in this book.
11.55pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline Examiner reports that in a new book called ‘The Unreleased Beatles’ by Richie Unterberger its revealed that Mick and Keith wrote a song for the Beatles called ‘Give Me Your Hand and Hold It Tight’ which they rejected.
An excerpt from the article reads
According to Unterberger, Mick Jagger revealed the existence of the song in 1965. “A long time ago, me and Keith wrote something called ‘Give Me Your Hand and Hold It Tight,’ but the Beatles wouldn’t do it. They wrote one for us as well, called ‘Outside 109’ [possibly meaning ‘One After 909 ,’ which the Beatles had written years before and recorded at EMI in March 1963, though they didn’t release their own version until Let It Be ]. We said we wouldn’t do the song until they did ours. So nothing happened on either side. We’re still waiting.” Despite Jagger’s shaky memory and the fact the song was turned down by the Beatles, it was released by Teddy Green in 1964.
More at the link.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
12.18am
28 March 2014
Offline Mimi said
The Stones were more or less trying to imitate the Beatles for a long time, making me lose most of my respect for them. There isn’t a comparison in my opinion, although people tend to think that they are in the same league. The Beatles have singing ability, flexibility, and over-all musical talent that far outweighs the stones.
I don’t think the Stones tried an any way to be like the Beatles. The Stones were a Blues band, and the Beatles were (Pop) Rock & Roll. Yes, all bands that came out of the UK dressed in matching suits, but that was just the times. Soon after, the Stones stopped wearing matching suits while the Beatles did it right up until their last Concert in ’66.
But ya, obviously the Beatles out talented all other bands including the Stones.
BEATLES Music gives me Eargasms! 
3.54am
11 November 2010
Offline I really don’t see any point in comparing the two bands. I love both bands. I could say more, but I’ll just let Mick Jagger do the talking.
I'm Necko. I'm like Ringo except I wear necklaces.
I'm also ewe2 on weekends.
Most likely to post things that make you go hmm... 2015, 2016, 2017. 
2.05pm
Reviewers
14 April 2010
Offline Necko said
I really don’t see any point in comparing the two bands. I love both bands.
Same. I haven’t owned much by the Stones in the past except for compilation albums and plan on changing that very soon. The documentary Crossfire Hurricane is in my rack at home and it is fabulous – highly recommended. My only wish about the Stones is that Mick would have have been a better singer.
To the fountain of perpetual mirth, let it roll for all its worth. And all the children boogie.
4.14pm
8 November 2012
Offline I’ve always wondered why there are rivalries between fans of certain bands, having grown up in the 80s when teeny bopper magazines encouraged you to like one band over another. I suppose loyalty fueled sales. But it’s strange to me when grown adults still adhere to the idea that you can’t love more than one band. I have a friend who won’t like the Beatles because she’s a Monkees fans, and I want to tell her, “you know they were friends, right? And this rivalry, if it ever existed, was only relevant 50 years ago?”
To stay on topic, I guess part of it is about shaping identity, i.e. seeming tougher/edgy because you favor The Rolling Stones.
parlance
6.07am
22 November 2014
Offline Gosh. I really love both of these bands. Lately i have been getting into The Rolling Stones l. I just bought Exile On Main Street by them and i am saving up for the Rolling Stones’ box set. I Love them both but The Beatles win just slightly.
Now i can compare my Favorite things about them (Remember this is just my opinion)
Favorite Song
Rain > Star Star
Favorite Album
Revolver > Exile On Main Street (Havent heard all of it so this is what i will say for now)
Longeivity
The Beatles < The Rolling Stones
First Hit Single
Love Me Do < Satisfaction
Last Hit Single
The Long And Winding Road < Start Me Up
Guitarist’s
George Harrison > Keith Richards
Creativity
The Beatles > The Rolling Stones
Physcadelic Album
Sgt. Pepper > Their Satanic Majesties Request (Havent heard all of it so this is what i will say for now)
Influences
Buddy Holly = Muddy Waters
Influenced
Oasis > Very Minor Bands
Lets Rack up the points
The Beatles : 7 The Rolling Stones: 4
I Think that Rolling Stone should do a cover story of The Rolling Stones covering "Like a Rolling Stone" or if a Type of Beetle was named after The Beatles.
8.01am
Reviewers
29 August 2013
Offline parlance said
I’ve always wondered why there are rivalries between fans of certain bands, having grown up in the 80s when teeny bopper magazines encouraged you to like one band over another. I suppose loyalty fueled sales. But it’s strange to me when grown adults still adhere to the idea that you can’t love more than one band. I have a friend who won’t like the Beatles because she’s a Monkees fans, and I want to tell her, “you know they were friends, right? And this rivalry, if it ever existed, was only relevant 50 years ago?”To stay on topic, I guess part of it is about shaping identity, i.e. seeming tougher/edgy because you favor The Rolling Stones.
parlance
Just show your friend that pizza commercial with Ringo and the Monkees 
==> trcanberra and hongkonglady - Together even when not (married for those not in the know!) <==
