The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones
The Beatles.
April 28th, 2020 at 11:25 PM ^
are a lot of people's favorite band until they grow-up and realize how much better the Stones are.
April 28th, 2020 at 11:29 PM ^
Led Zeppelin is better than both.
April 28th, 2020 at 11:31 PM ^
So are The Who
April 28th, 2020 at 11:52 PM ^
Ooph, everyone in this chain had a leg to stand on until you.
you mean better than everyone else
It just doesn't get any better than this. The violin bow on that Fender Telecaster is the stuff nightmares are made of. Skip ahead to 5:50 if you must.
April 29th, 2020 at 10:01 AM ^
Pete Best was a 2-star recruit; the Beatles clicked when they picked up the former 4-star Ringo through the transfer portal.
5-star Brian Jones had a couple good seasons for the Stones, but their deep bench of other 5-stars (Mick Taylor and Ron Wood) kept them humming.
Stars matter!
April 29th, 2020 at 12:15 PM ^
Actually, according to Paul, Pete Best was a better drummer, but Ringo was a better Beatle.
Pink Floyd, obviously
It is unfair to compare the two because The Beatles are The Beatles and the Rolling Stones are not.
Ass and titties are also not the same. Which do you prefer?
That depends.
April 28th, 2020 at 11:25 PM ^
I’d prefer the Stones and titties. However, I do still love Beatles and booties.
So good I had to repost it
I know, The Beatles suck.
Shit lol
I'm wondering if this is a post because in a recent inteview Mick Jagger said the Beatles shouldn't be considered the best. The best band ever is the Rolling Stones (according to Mick, ha).
Later in the interview Mick doubled down, presumably as a indicator of the aforementioned greatness, and said the Stones are the best because they are still selling out stadiums while the Beatles are all dead.
Well Ringo is still alive. Paul is dead, obv.
April 29th, 2020 at 12:54 AM ^
I feel obligated to tell this story here. I was a writer for The Daily back in '86 and '87, and I did a story on Riders in the Sky, a C & W/comedy band whose lead singer/bassist, Fred LaBour, went to Michigan. They had a gig in Ann Arbor but there was a more interesting story to tell. While he was a student, LaBour wrote an article in The Daily about the "Paul is Dead" rumor, so he was at least partly responsible for the whole "Paul is Dead" thing spreading and becoming urban legend. My story in the Daily ended up being about his story in the Daily. Very meta. Check out his Wikipedia page.
April 29th, 2020 at 12:00 PM ^
Riders in the Sky were a fixture at the Cowboy Poetry Gathering in my hometown growing up. Love those guys.
They even had a Saturday Morning Show for a little while in the 90's IIRC.
Ha.
But I'm just the messenger... wasn't my interview.
And Mick was responding to Paul who said on Stern that the Beatles were better.
It's weird, but Macca has been living rent free inside the Stones' heads for decades. Want to know when the Stones are about to launch a major tour? Just wait until a few months after Paul announces his tour.
Nickelback and it isn't even close. Especially compared to Creed. Seesh.
Coldplay vs Maroon 5
Actually, Creed is one of the answers to the question:
"What is one rock band that really sucks that nobody will remember in 20 years?"
Queen.
‘They are/were better than both.
April 29th, 2020 at 12:34 AM ^
Led Zep is the greatest rock band ever, with the Stones at #2.
Tough to compare with the Beatles. But I do know is that I put on the Sticky Fingers album the other day and listened to it all the way through. Haven't done the same with the Beatles in years. So between the two - I am with you on the Stones.
At least the Stones aren’t thieves lol
April 28th, 2020 at 10:12 PM ^
Oh come on, the Stones borrowed liberally from American blues just like Zep did.
Doesnt matter to me - they were great - unless you tell me they didnt write Kashmir, then I will be sad....and damn if Bonham and Page didnt improve on all those thefts...great musicians, perhaps average writers?
Zeppelin
Song thieves
They should have given proper credit.
Regardless, still the greatest hard rock band in history.
just waiting for someone to suggest 'abba' or 'simple minds' or something like that for greatest band...
Would have thought that was unlikely - but Creed was mentioned above. Makes ABBA look like a worthy suggestion.
April 28th, 2020 at 10:17 PM ^
Milli Vanilli. And they won a Grammy (later taken away for some reason).
At one point, Abba had sold more albums than any other group. Which proves the point that you don't have to be good to sell music. A point also proved by The Beatles, Taylor Swift, and Katie Perry (among a host of others). All you need are catchy pop tunes that young kids like...
April 28th, 2020 at 11:45 PM ^
My favorite Zeppelin song has always been Nobody's Fault But Mine. Awesome jam with an incredible lead riff. I found out two days ago that it was a cover of a song written by blues musician Blind Willie Johnson. I like Zeppelin but at least The Beatles' best songs (and my favorites) were 100% their own. And spare me Twist and Shout, mmm kay?
You can love them both. They are both divine. But . . .
When they were both active (the 60s), the Beatles far out-classed the Stones every which way. They had the better singles and the better albums.
Of course, though, the Beatles recording career lasted just a little over 7 years. The Stones have continued on for another 50! So, if you were to try to crunch ALL of the Stones' work and compare that to the Beatles', then it gets interesting. I would still take the Beatles, but I will not discount the Stones' longevity and their incredible touring career, which is easily the greatest of any act in history.
I will say that the Stones' work 1970-present is better than even a conglomeration of all the Beatles members' solo material. The afterglow of the Beatles waned around 1974, after which you could probably put all the "classic" material from the individual members on one single CD.
With the caveat that the question itself is fundamentally flawed, they are two different bands with different missions. The Stones are a bar blues band (on steroids, mind you), while the Beatles were making pop music (itself a consortium of musical genres). Both were damn good at their chosen pursuits, but the most astounding fact to me is how the Beatles reinvented pop music with each of five straight albums (ignoring Magical Mystery Tour):
Rubber Soul->Revolver->Sgt. Peppers->White->Abbey Road
That's really hard to do, and they blew a tire and skidded off the road as a result. The Stones did their best to drive their chosen genre to the fore of popular music with their astounding run from
Beggar's Banquet->Let it Bleed->Sticky Fingers->Exile on Main St.
They were both the best at the musical paradigms of their choice, but the Beatles get my nod because of the boundaries the pushed out.
Beatles after they became enlightened, not even fair to compare anyone else to them
I like the Kinks more than The Stones
beatles were ground-breaking, so kudos to them. but the one song of theirs that i genuinely like, 'twist and shout', wasn't even written by them.
stones by far.
If you can dig Twist and Shout surely you can find it in your heart to genuinely like more of their songs than that.
April 28th, 2020 at 10:04 PM ^
the serious part of the discussion is that the beatles were an incredible phenomenon when they got big. nothing like that ever had occurred before and that is exceptional. that said, generally when their songs come on i would normally change the channel - i guess its vote by fingers. its not like i hate them.
April 29th, 2020 at 12:10 AM ^
I get it. The Beatles have basically been ubiquitous since 1964. I am one of the biggest Beatle fans out there but there are still some songs that I've tired of or don't particularly enjoy and will change the channel if said songs come on. But the ubiquitousness (not a word, I know) is what sets them apart from everyone else. There's good reason they get unparalleled air time.
I always knew I liked you.