Beatles or Stones?

[CFH]

The Beatles, all day everyday. The best band of all time.

The Stones are ridiculously overrated IMO.

And Lyle, unless you count the ability to play shitty disco as the pinnacle of diversity, the Beatles were waaaaay more versatile than the Stones.

[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

[Master]

Beatles never understand the Stones

[mrbig1]

Yesterday is the most covered song in history. Frank Sinatra said Something was his favorite love song. Rolling stone magazine rated the 100 greatest albums of alltime. 4 of the top 10 were Beatles albums and 6 of the top 20. With over a half a billion albums sold world wide,that just about says it all.

[Youngblood]

Beatles.

coo coo ka choo.

[CutMeMick]

The Beatles by a mile for me...

[Nitrofrost]

That is one hell of a choice but it comes down to the Beatles I mean they changed alot of things and lead a revolution.

[CGM]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

[Formerly D@vid Leeder]

When I was a child, I listened to The Beatles. When I was a teen, I listened to The Stones.

Now I'm a geezer and I listen to both, but too many of The Beatles' songs seem whiny and depressing. The Stones are fun and engaging. The Beatles were great, but over time they don't have that essential ingredient...they made great MUSIC in different styles, but The Rolling Stones made great ROCK AND ROLL!

[hfahrenheit]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

they very nearly had Jeff Beck, and I think that would have been great.

[mrbig1]

Here's a point of comparison... When's the last time you heard a Stones tune in a department store or a doctor's office, or an elevator for that matter?

For the Stones, hiring Ron Wood was a step in the wrong direction IMO. It would have been better if they had found themselves a real good lead guitarist, which Wood ain't.

I was sitting in the doctors waiting room and a Beatles song came on. Their music was so beautiful. 50 years from now the Beatles songs will still mean something. People will still get it. The Rolling stones of 1964 are the same in 2008. The Beatles of 1964 were not the same in 1966. Thank you Marijuana.

[hfahrenheit]

Yesterday is the most covered song in history. Frank Sinatra said Something was his favorite love song. Rolling stone magazine rated the 100 greatest albums of alltime. 4 of the top 10 were Beatles albums and 6 of the top 20. With over a half a billion albums sold world wide,that just about says it all.

I give Rolling Stone, (and Billboard for that matter) zero credibility. Successful marketing sells albums, not quality of music. It's why a band like Pearl Jam will sellout every single concert they put on world wide, but have no Billboard impact whatsoever, whereas some rap act will have great Billboard numbers but terrible touring numbers. Rolling Stone is just a mouth piece for the corporate music machine.

[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.