Beatles or Stones?

[El Kabong]

OK I'll show you Rolling Stones versitility

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxHE876o3ME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVEdYYMlOJ4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ki2daAPp_k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ex1nxuM1fU8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MejtR81RzCo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn6kHgA-eRE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJMnES7WoT4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx07A9LWBJA

The Rolling Stones simply rocked harder than The Beatles ever did...I like The Beatles and all but no way they top the stones.


And Elvis beats them all....he was just one dude

[mrbig1]

The Stones did rock harder. The Beatles were artist and could rock and play some of the best love songs the world has ever known. They were much deeper than the Stones. As I said before the Stones of 1964 are the Stones of 2009.

[El Kabong]

The Stones did rock harder. The Beatles were artist and could rock and play some of the best love songs the world has ever known. They were much deeper than the Stones. As I said before the Stones of 1964 are the Stones of 2009.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree....The Stones had a different vibe, they weren't as poppy as The Beatles either

[mrbig1]

The Stones did rock harder. The Beatles were artist and could rock and play some of the best love songs the world has ever known. They were much deeper than the Stones. As I said before the Stones of 1964 are the Stones of 2009.

I guess we're just going to have to disagree....The Stones had a different vibe, they weren't as poppy as The Beatles either

That's true about the early Beatles. Unlike the Stones they were able to grow up and change. The Album Meet the Beatles of 1964 was lightyears from the white album or sgt. pepper. The times didn't change them they change the times and the world.

[rialex]

eraserheads... no kidding aside, i like the beatles more. they will never get out of style

[Lixxi]

Beatles all the way.
I grew up listening to them and the monkeys :]

[mrbig1]

Welcome to the board fellow Beatles fan. The Beatles are still to this day a household name in America. I wonder who is bigger in England?

[CGM]

Beatles had a lot of really lame, silly songs in their later years. They could write down any kind of crap they wanted and it would still sell. And a lot of the credit for their sophisticated arrangements and sounds goes to George Martin.

[mrbig1]

Beatles had a lot of really lame, silly songs in their later years. They could write down any kind of crap they wanted and it would still sell. And a lot of the credit for their sophisticated arrangements and sounds goes to George Martin.

Do the beatles owe you money?

[CGM]

Beatles had a lot of really lame, silly songs in their later years. They could write down any kind of crap they wanted and it would still sell. And a lot of the credit for their sophisticated arrangements and sounds goes to George Martin.

Do the beatles owe you money?

No, I just don't think they were as perfect as some people seem to believe.

[Spicoli]

Stones 24/6.....Love the Helter-Skelter,Sgt Peppers and the movies were a riot

But Stones run deep.Great range

[jamiebhoy]

Think it was Andre that kind of summed it up. The Stones more or less have stuck to a Blues based sound so have been in a specific Genre, The Beatles did experiment a lot more. I like both on their own respective merits. The each have a lot to offer .

[Gandalf]

I don't really care. Bowie was always better than the both of them and he was just a one man songwriter. The Beatles and Stones always needed a group between them to ever make a decent album or two. Bowie was the most important musical artist of the 20th century.

[mrbig1]

I don't really care. Bowie was always better than the both of them and he was just a one man songwriter. The Beatles and Stones always needed a group between them to ever make a decent album or two. Bowie was the most important musical artist of the 20th century.

I'm a Bowie fan too, but the most important musical artist of the 20th century? Alot of you guys here were not alive to know music before the Beatles. The Beatles sound was something never heard before. It change music and the world. I was sitting in the Doctors office waiting for my wife. They has classical 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 all time. 4 of the top 10 were Beatles Albums. They could rock and sing beautiful songs. The Stones love songs lack heart. The Beatles would change then change again. People grow up, but many artist like the Stone always stay the same of fear their fans may not like it. Only Sinatra and the Beatles have gain the respect from fellow artist no matter the race or age group.

[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?