Beatles or Stones?

[Youngblood]

Beatles.

coo coo ka choo.

[CutMeMick]

The Beatles by a mile for me...

[CutMeMick]

Early Stones, latter Beatles.

beds, is that you fella?

[CFH]

The Beatles were the most popular pop band of all time, no doubt about it, although personally I find a lot of their stuff overrated, IMO.

Musically they were probably ahead of their time, George Martin had something to do with that. So many great melodies also. But lyrically? Browse through their song catolog and make note of how many of their songs were filled with incredibly trite, inane, downright silly lyrics. But I guess lots of people like that kind of stuff.

Beatles Lyrics Archive

I know it's very subjective, but some of Lennon's later lyrics are outstanding IMO. McCartney is definitely lacking as a lyricist though, against IMO.

[CGM]

The Beatles were the most popular pop band of all time, no doubt about it, although personally I find a lot of their stuff overrated, IMO.

Musically they were probably ahead of their time, George Martin had something to do with that. So many great melodies also. But lyrically? Browse through their song catolog and make note of how many of their songs were filled with incredibly trite, inane, downright silly lyrics. But I guess lots of people like that kind of stuff.

Beatles Lyrics Archive

I know it's very subjective, but some of Lennon's later lyrics are outstanding IMO. McCartney is definitely lacking as a lyricist though, against IMO.

Agreed on Lennon. Most of the silly stuff can be blamed on McCartney I'm sure. Harrison didn't write a lot of the songs for the Beatles, but there were a few. If I Needed Someone, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, and Something were all Beatles standouts by Harrison. In their last couple of years, Lennon and McCartney collaborated less and less, and generally sang their own songs.

[CFH]

The Beatles were the most popular pop band of all time, no doubt about it, although personally I find a lot of their stuff overrated, IMO.

Musically they were probably ahead of their time, George Martin had something to do with that. So many great melodies also. But lyrically? Browse through their song catolog and make note of how many of their songs were filled with incredibly trite, inane, downright silly lyrics. But I guess lots of people like that kind of stuff.

Beatles Lyrics Archive

I know it's very subjective, but some of Lennon's later lyrics are outstanding IMO. McCartney is definitely lacking as a lyricist though, against IMO.

Agreed on Lennon. Most of the silly stuff can be blamed on McCartney I'm sure. Harrison didn't write a lot of the songs for the Beatles, but there were a few. If I Needed Someone, While My Guitar Gently Weeps, and Something were all Beatles standouts by Harrison. In their last couple of years, Lennon and McCartney collaborated less and less, and generally sang their own songs.

Harrison was a more than decent lyricist IMO, some of his solo stuff aside.

[James_Teja]

Stones sucks. Beatles rules!

[Dark Lord Al]

its the stones
i hate the beatles

You're British and hate the Beatles? Off with his head!!!

My favorite is " IVE GOT YOU" by the Stones

[Formerly D@vid Leeder]

The only reason why I bring this topic up is because two guys at work believe the rolling stone are better. They must be high. The stones are a great rock band but that's all they are. The Beatles are so much more. They change the world and music forever. I want to see what you cats think. Please set these guys straight.

I gotta say that when I was a kid, I liked the Beatles better. After all the music the Stones have done up until now, they've taken the goods. Songs like Angie, Undercover of the Night, Out of Tears, Street Fighting Man, Sympathy for the Devil, Paint It Black, Get Offa My Cloud, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Waiting on a Friend, Mixed Emotions, Anybody Seen My Baby, Let's Spend the Night Together, and Satisfaction.

For me, the Beatles are too syrupy by and large: Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

[Andre]

I have all the Stones old stuff on decca vinyl in mint condition all the basic blues stuff they started out with.
I got about four other albums from over the years so probably got 11 in total.
I have one or two Beatles albums.
So even though I voted for Beatles in regards to the question and I stick by the reasons, I listen to the Stones more cause of my "taste in music" but that wasnt in the question.

[Formerly D@vid Leeder]

The only reason why I bring this topic up is because two guys at work believe the rolling stone are better. They must be high. The stones are a great rock band but that's all they are. The Beatles are so much more. They change the world and music forever. I want to see what you cats think. Please set these guys straight.

I should make sure to answer the question posed: Beatles or Stones. Personally, in terms of longevity and staying power, I'd have to say The Stones. Not only are they still around, but they are usually the touring act which makes the most in each year they tour as far as I know.

The Stones, all the way.

[Andre]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3IUASoqfM

Check this wicked version by an Aussie band it really gets going.

[wesrman]

The Beatles and its not even close imo. None of them suck dick. :P

Nah I like the Stones, but mosty their early blues stuff before they screwed over Brian Jones and Mick got all gay.

I just prefer the Beatles and unlike most Beatles fans i like George the best.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHChc...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=riOnV...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZtQh5EIgWQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HcqW-TDLMk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI6WA...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pl-Cg...eature=related

[Andre]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=MYRajK...eature=related

This one has it all.

[mrbig1]

No Beatles no Stones. The Beatles was the first British band to make it big in America. Without the Beatles, the stones would be a bunch of old men playing night clubs in jolly old England.