Beatles or Stones?

[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.

[hfahrenheit]

dude- stones all the way. the beatles were the world's first boy band; they were made popular by catering to 14 yr old girls, and off of that success they were able to do the more "experimental" stuff, which would have been largely ignored had they not been tween idols.

true enough, they paved the way for the British invasion, but atleast the stones didn't cater to pubescent girls and had the decency to rip off blues tunes and not open themselves up for later comparisons to new kids on the block, etc...

personally, I think Led Zep tops them both; although not as popular (because of the lack of appeal to children), they started a genre of music (hard rock/metal) and never, ever, ever- could be compared to a manufactored, little coporation created, tween popular pop for girls.

[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.

[The Congressman]

Difinitely the Beatles.

[hfahrenheit]

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.

They were both "boy bands," but I much prefer the Stones. The Beatles were one of the earliest examples of successful mass marketing of music...

I happen to like Led Zep better than both, though.

[CFH]

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.

They were both "boy bands," but I much prefer the Stones. The Beatles were one of the earliest examples of successful mass marketing of music...

I happen to like Led Zep better than both, though.

I think I'm probably the only person alive who is lukewarm on Led Zepplin. They have some good tunes, but they don't really do much for me. I think it's Plante's voice (sacrilege, I know).

[CGM]

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.

They were both "boy bands," but I much prefer the Stones. The Beatles were one of the earliest examples of successful mass marketing of music...

I happen to like Led Zep better than both, though.

I think I'm probably the only person alive who is lukewarm on Led Zepplin. They have some good tunes, but they don't really do much for me. I think it's Plante's voice (sacrilege, I know).

You and me both. Plant I find kind of pretentious. Page is a good studio guy, but live he is pretty average.

As for Neil Young vs the Beatles, well I thought you had it right the first time. I can go for months without hearing a Beatles song, or at least I would if I could, and not give a damn, but I go through withdrawal if I don't get my Neil.

[CFH]

They were both "boy bands," but I much prefer the Stones. The Beatles were one of the earliest examples of successful mass marketing of music...

I happen to like Led Zep better than both, though.

I think I'm probably the only person alive who is lukewarm on Led Zepplin. They have some good tunes, but they don't really do much for me. I think it's Plante's voice (sacrilege, I know).

You and me both. Plant I find kind of pretentious. Page is a good studio guy, but live he is pretty average.

As for Neil Young vs the Beatles, well I thought you had it right the first time. I can go for months without hearing a Beatles song, or at least I would if I could, and not give a damn, but I go through withdrawal if I don't get my Neil.

All things being equal and ignoring all outside factors like influence etc. I would probably have Neil Young close to the Beatles in terms of my preferences. There are many times that I would choose NY over the Beatles without hesitation, perhaps even the majority of the time (for example, I have two Neil Young albums on my MP3 player and no Beatles), but I still love the Beatles. One mitigating factor is that I've heard almost every easily accessible (alubms + singles) Beatles song that I am somewhat sick of hearing almost all of them, so it's hard to gauge how much I really like them.

[CGM]

I think I'm probably the only person alive who is lukewarm on Led Zepplin. They have some good tunes, but they don't really do much for me. I think it's Plante's voice (sacrilege, I know).

You and me both. Plant I find kind of pretentious. Page is a good studio guy, but live he is pretty average.

As for Neil Young vs the Beatles, well I thought you had it right the first time. I can go for months without hearing a Beatles song, or at least I would if I could, and not give a damn, but I go through withdrawal if I don't get my Neil.

All things being equal and ignoring all outside factors like influence etc. I would probably have Neil Young close to the Beatles in terms of my preferences. There are many times that I would choose NY over the Beatles without hesitation, perhaps even the majority of the time (for example, I have two Neil Young albums on my MP3 player and no Beatles), but I still love the Beatles. One mitigating factor is that I've heard almost every easily accessible (alubms + singles) Beatles song that I am somewhat sick of hearing almost all of them, so it's hard to gauge how much I really like them.

Neil is a Canadian icon for sure, they love him here. I've seen maybe half a dozen of his shows over the years, arena shows that are always packed to the rafters, and the crowd is always very responsive.