kewlschool said:

I will also say that the Beatles albums, Stevie's 70's albums, and Prince 80's albums are the most solid albums out there. The stones have hits on their albums, but they have not put out ANY cohesive albums. Where as their counterparts the Beatles consistently did.

ignorance, sometimes irritating, always laughable

Maze said:

can't stand Jaggers so called voice, goddam awful
Keith Richards guitar? Phewwwww

mostly mediocre and sub par songwriting except for a random decent song idea here and there, often badly executed.

[Snip - luv4u]

JoeTyler said:

kewlschool said:

I will also say that the Beatles albums, Stevie's 70's albums, and Prince 80's albums are the most solid albums out there. The stones have hits on their albums, but they have not put out ANY cohesive albums. Where as their counterparts the Beatles consistently did.

ignorance, sometimes irritating, always laughable

I own all their albums up to and including tattoo you. I also am a Rolling Stones fan.

They (IMO) don't have any cohesive albums. Especially compared to the Beatles.

So typical of this debate - we're on page two and NOBODY has yet raised the FACT that the Beatles cannot fucking PLAY. They are subpar musicans at best - they suck at worst. Nobody can defend them based upon musicianship. Nobody.

[Edited 5/7/14 19:27pm]

[Edited 5/7/14 19:27pm]

[Edited 5/7/14 19:28pm]

JoeTyler said:

kewlschool said:

JoeTyler said:

ignorance, sometimes irritating, always laughable

I own all their albums up to and including tattoo you. I also am a Rolling Stones fan.

They (IMO) don't have any cohesive albums. Especially compared to the Beatles.

a) no you're not

b) yeah, keep repeating that bullshit

JoeTyler said:

kewlschool said:

I own all their albums up to and including tattoo you. I also am a Rolling Stones fan.

They (IMO) don't have any cohesive albums. Especially compared to the Beatles.

a) no you're not

b) yeah, keep repeating that bullshit

hardwork said:

So typical of this debate - we're on page two and NOBODY has yet raised the FACT that the Beatles cannot fucking PLAY. They are subpar musicans at best - they suck at worst. Nobody can defend them based upon musicianship. Nobody.

[Edited 5/7/14 19:27pm]

[Edited 5/7/14 19:27pm]

[Edited 5/7/14 19:28pm]

I don't really agree but, why would you want to defend any rock band "based on musicianship"? None of them can play as well as mid-level jazz musicians.

Both those bands were really inventive in the way they approached the concept of a rock band making records. They both made really memorable songs that still sound great today. That's worth a lot more to me than some band whose guitar player is better than Joe Satriani or whatever.

But I'd also say Richards and Harrison have two of THE most distinctive playing styles of anybody, you can tell it's them after a few notes. That's good musicianship. And McCarney's as good a bass player as any big rock band has ever had.

As to the question, no vote, too close to call. Both made some of my favorite music of all time.

I would also submit Between The Buttons, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers as all examples of extremely cohesive albums. There's not ten minutes of filler between the four of them, and they all flow perfectly together, and each one's really different from the others.

bobzilla77 said:

I would also submit Between The Buttons, Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers as all examples of extremely cohesive albums. There's not ten minutes of filler between the four of them, and they all flow perfectly together, and each one's really different from the others.

I agree.

When you listen to Beggars Banquet, or Exile on Main St, you just go through one journey that flows so well,, that blues rock vibe, that quincky guitar sound.... their music is just a soundtrack for many things... Something Beatles missed with their genre blending albums (Except of Revolver / Rubber Soul - their only cohesive albums imo, one for the hard rock/pshycedelic fans and the other for folk rock heads).....

The Rolling Stones

JoeTyler said:

Maze said:

can't stand Jaggers so called voice, goddam awful
Keith Richards guitar? Phewwwww

mostly mediocre and sub par songwriting except for a random decent song idea here and there, often badly executed.

[Snip - luv4u]

that would explain it of course. but you are being too harsh now. I think they just don't have enough talent

kewlschool said:

JoeTyler said:

ignorance, sometimes irritating, always laughable

I own all their albums up to and including tattoo you. I also am a Rolling Stones fan.

They (IMO) don't have any cohesive albums. Especially compared to the Beatles.

oh they are somewhat cohesive. but cohesive mediocrity is not what I long for.




oh, and not surprisingly still noone could name at least three cover version where the Stones improved the original?

okay... ONE?

hardwork said:

The bottom line? Mick and Keith had the funk. John and Paul did not. It's really, truly just that simple.

Agreed.

Maze said:

kewlschool said:

I own all their albums up to and including tattoo you. I also am a Rolling Stones fan.

They (IMO) don't have any cohesive albums. Especially compared to the Beatles.

oh they are somewhat cohesive. but cohesive mediocrity is not what I long for.




oh, and not surprisingly still noone could name at least three cover version where the Stones improved the original?

okay... ONE?

and here we go again,[Snip - luv4u]!!!

-not fade away

-it's all over now

-little red rooster

-just my imagination/ain't too proud to beg (of course, the originals are more iconic/better, but it takes a certain degree of genius to turn two soul standards into late '70s arena rock hymns...

[Flame snip - luv4u]

The Beatles were "crisp", with a lot of studio tricks and wizardry; the Stones were/are a BAND...loose, "sloppy" and awesome, wrecking shop wherever they went. That being said...I have no preference...they both are the epitome of what you should be as an artist/rock star. I've paid more attention to the Beatles, but Mick and the boys take a backseat to no one.

Beatles.

JoeTyler said:

Maze said:

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

[Snip - luv4u]

I've never liked the Stones. Done & done for me.

There is only *one* Rolling Stones song that I truly love: "Miss You"

On the other hand,I own the entire Beatles box set that contains all of their albums.

yes,I'm a Beatles fanatic

There's no point in making an argument for this position, but:

Beatles.

Just because the other option doesn't even make any sort of sense to me. I can't imagine preferring the Stones.