Beatles or Stones?

[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?

[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?