Beatles or Stones?

[El Kabong]

I love both bands, The Rolling Stones are my personal favorites between the two so there is no debate about that. As performers, neither The Beatles or The Stones have anything on the likes of Elvis and James Brown

[CGM]

I love both bands, The Rolling Stones are my personal favorites between the two so there is no debate about that. As performers, neither The Beatles or The Stones have anything on the likes of Elvis and James Brown

James Brown was a real showman. If I'm not mistaken, in addition to "The King of Soul", he was also known as "The Hardest Working Man in Show Business".

[El Kabong]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRbqHyoYrFU

James Brown = 100% pure talent

And of course THE KING was just a marvelous performer/showman as was Frank Sinatra but just sticking with this argument I sides with The Stones.

[mrbig1]

...
I was sitting in the Doctors office waiting for my wife. They has classic music playing, A beatles song came on. You could hear the beauty of their songs. In a poll of writers,artist, and DJs around the world to name the greatest Albums of alltime. 4 of the top 10 were Beatles Albums. They could rock and sing beautiful songs. The Stones love songs lack heart.
...

I get a feeling this thread is repeating itself.

I'll say this much for the Beatles, they had some lovely melodies. Which makes for easy translation into musak for doctor's office and elevators, and grocery stores.

That bit about the Stones love songs lacking heart is questionable. By heart you mean emotion? Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your point with examples of Beatles "heart" as something the Stones don't have?

Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.

[CGM]

...
I was sitting in the Doctors office waiting for my wife. They has classic music playing, A beatles song came on. You could hear the beauty of their songs. In a poll of writers,artist, and DJs around the world to name the greatest Albums of alltime. 4 of the top 10 were Beatles Albums. They could rock and sing beautiful songs. The Stones love songs lack heart.
...

I get a feeling this thread is repeating itself.

I'll say this much for the Beatles, they had some lovely melodies. Which makes for easy translation into musak for doctor's office and elevators, and grocery stores.

That bit about the Stones love songs lacking heart is questionable. By heart you mean emotion? Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your point with examples of Beatles "heart" as something the Stones don't have?

Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.

Sure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada.

[mrbig1]

I get a feeling this thread is repeating itself.

I'll say this much for the Beatles, they had some lovely melodies. Which makes for easy translation into musak for doctor's office and elevators, and grocery stores.

That bit about the Stones love songs lacking heart is questionable. By heart you mean emotion? Perhaps you'd care to demonstrate your point with examples of Beatles "heart" as something the Stones don't have?

Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.

Sure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada.

You didn't think that was funny?

[The Congressman]

Difinitely the Beatles.

[CGM]

Mick Jagger sounds like Gilbert Gottfried. Not the voice you would want for a love song.

Sure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada.

You didn't think that was funny?

You mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.

If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.

Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.

cheers.

[CFH]

Sure Bud, ok Jagger sounds like Gottfried, and he can't sing love songs, whatever you say, At least he didn't sing Obladi Oblada.

You didn't think that was funny?

You mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.

If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.

Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.

cheers.

I love, and I mean love, the Beatles, but I'll take Neil Young over them 10 times out of 10. One of the best lyricists and unconventional guitarists/musicians of all time. I saw him last year and he was one of the best shows I have ever seen, even in his twilight years.

[Jimanuel Boogustus]

You Canadians are weird



Im joking... I've always had a soft spot for the Beatles. But the Stones are appropriate sometimes but i doubt i could get bored of listening to the Beatles. (And that's coming from someone who really isn't around that kind of music much).

[CFH]

You didn't think that was funny?

You mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.

If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.

Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.

cheers.

I love, and I mean love, the Beatles, but I'll take Neil Young over them 10 times out of 10. One of the best lyricists and unconventional guitarists/musicians of all time. I saw him last year and he was one of the best shows I have ever seen, even in his twilight years.

I'm must've been drunk when I wrote that. I have absolutely no recollection of that post. NY over the Beatles? Maybe sometimes, but not 10/10 that's for sure.

[mrbig1]

You mean Obla Di Obla da? I don't know about funny in the humorous sense, but it was good for a laugh. Incredibly trite and banal lyrics, like a lot of Beatles songs, especially the ones McCartney wrote.

If you meant your Gottfried comment, no, it didn't occur to me that you were joking. I don't really know your posting style. I've never heard of Gottfried and I ain't a mindreader.

Anyways, Beatles vs Stones is something I argued 25-30 years ago, it really don't matter all that much. I've got more Johnny Winters or Steely Dan, or Neil Young albums than Beatles and Stones combined, which tells you where I'm at.

cheers.

I love, and I mean love, the Beatles, but I'll take Neil Young over them 10 times out of 10. One of the best lyricists and unconventional guitarists/musicians of all time. I saw him last year and he was one of the best shows I have ever seen, even in his twilight years.

I'm must've been drunk when I wrote that. I have absolutely no recollection of that post. NY over the Beatles? Maybe sometimes, but not 10/10 that's for sure.

You are forgiven for your sins.

[VictorCharlie]

Bigger influence and more of an Icon- Beatles

Who I'd rather listen to- Stones

[DaxxKahn]

Beatles but the Stones are good as well

[mrbig1]

I like the Stones as well. My problem with them is that they never grew up. Their music is the same old thing year in and year out. The Beatles did not change with the times they change the time they were in. The Beatles of 64 were not the Beatles of 66. People grow up and change. That's what I love about them. great artist, great song writers. The Stone are good song writer themselves but not on the same level as the Beatles.