I think of it like this:

Beatles....if you like pop

Stones.....if you like blues

The Beatles created songs and albums that took pop music to unimaginable levels.

The Rolling Stones are good,but I can't say the same about them.

They don't have an incredible,groundbreaking album like Sgt.Peppers in their catalog.

SuperSoulFighter said:

Beatles... Mick... Jimi... Madonna... Dylan... Michael Jackson... Elvis... So many great people in rock & roll who didn't have a great singing voice...

and I'm not even a hardcore MJ fan

Always enjoyed the Beatles for most of my life, but lately I've been coming to appreciate the stones. Hope I can catch them on tour someday before they kick the bucket.

JoeTyler said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

JoeTyler said:

and I'm not even a hardcore MJ fan

I knew someone was gonna react to that!

and now I also see that you included Elvis

you're aren't ya

SuperSoulFighter said:

JoeTyler said:

The Beatles.

For me The Rolling Stones, but the Beatles were massive & folks still cant shake them despite The Stones putting more time in, etc.

BitetheBeat said:

For me The Rolling Stones, but the Beatles were massive & folks still cant shake them despite The Stones putting more time in, etc.

People still can't shake T-Pain. That guy has been around for about 10 years

The Beatles mostly because I went through a heavy phase of getting into their music and stories in the mid-90's during the Anthology period and popularity. I have never done that with The Stones, altho I do have a little bit of their music and I like some of their songs.

B E A T L E S

BOTH! The end.

SoulAlive said:

The Beatles created songs and albums that took pop music to unimaginable levels.

The Rolling Stones are good,but I can't say the same about them.

They don't have an incredible,groundbreaking album like Sgt.Peppers in their catalog.

Actually, they do, it's called "Exile on Main Street".

BTW- I don't think "Pepper" is The Beatles best- it'snot nearly as good as "Revolver" or "Abbey Road"

jjhunsecker said:

SoulAlive said:

The Beatles created songs and albums that took pop music to unimaginable levels.

The Rolling Stones are good,but I can't say the same about them.

They don't have an incredible,groundbreaking album like Sgt.Peppers in their catalog.

Actually, they do, it's called "Exile on Main Street".

BTW- I don't think "Pepper" is The Beatles best- it'snot nearly as good as "Revolver" or "Abbey Road"

agree with all this

This is a good question and an excellent discussion. The Beatles latter albums we so technically perfect, they would spend days setting up the mics to get the sound exactly right. They put so many details into the songs that there was simply no way to perform them live, so they did not even attempt to do so. The Rolling Stones sound is so raw, it is as if they set up a mic in the middle of a bar and told Charlie to "count it off", and they did it in one take. As polished as the Beatles sound is with it's three part harmonies, the Rolling Stones are just that beautifully raw. You listen to "Dear Prudence" and you say what a beautiful song. You listen to "Fool to Cry" and you say that man is in pain. "Revolution" makes you clap your hands, "Paint it Black" will make you kick off your shoes.

Go to Youtube and you can see John and Yoko playing with Chuck Berry on a television program, and Paul singing with Michael Jackson and Stevie Wonder in million dollar videos. Then do yourself a favor and find The Rolling Stones playing with Muddy Waters, Buddy Guy, and Junior Wells at the Checkerboard Lounge, an old blues dive on the South side of Chicago. I appreciate, enjoy, and respect the Beatles tremendously, but no way they come out ahead in this one on one match-up.

The Beatles' legacy is just so incredibly dense with innovation on all levels, from haircuts/clothes through microphone placements, that it's no surprise that they were the biggest band of the 90's and the 00's never mind the sixties. Lately, it's been a bit tedious listening to all the boomers going on about their memories of 50 years ago but it won't matter in the long run...their huge contribution will keep looking shiny and new because they got so far ahead of themselves and everybody in a mere 7 years.

The Stones can't be knocked either because what they developed was that 'rock'n'roll' attitude that drives people into the life of bands and musicians. Musically, they kept a consistency to their roots in blues that even the eclectic progressiveness of The Beatles couldn't keep them off for long (it did in 1967 for their 'Satanic Majesties' album but they realised their mistake) and in contrast to the musical attention deficit disorder of The Fabs (all over the shop and making some new ones), The Stones have to be applauded for ploughing their blues furrow and evolving it in their own terms.

The Stones.

ginusher said:

.

I got a personal preference for the Stones. I love the blues references they threw into their music in the early days.

.

"Blues references"?

They were total blues influenced!

Anyways, The Beatles are the most important and influential pop band of all time - and for good

reason.

The Stones. I think The Beatles are good at their high-water mark but generally somewhat overrated. And as a live unit, it was never even a contest.

Who won?

Let's not forget the Beatles made all that awesome music

and wrote all those inspirational lyrics while they were just babies...

SoulAlive said:

The Beatles

No Question

The Beatles - Win ...better musicians, better singers, better writers, shorter career

Stones - Mick ..great front man, Keith great front man.

deebee said:

The Stones. I think The Beatles are good at their high-water mark but generally somewhat overrated. And as a live unit, it was never even a contest.

How can the most influential pop band be overrated? The Stones were hardly the innovative

songwriters and recording artists (in terms of album making) that the Beatles were.

If you listen to Beatles records, you hear musical progression: from doing ditties to more orchestral

suite stuff. The Stones stick to American based blues, R&B, rock, and country, and never

veer from that musical template. As in terms of musicianship, I'd go with the Beatles as well. Paul

McCartney is the greatest pop musician of all time and was the second best guitarist in his own

outfit! The best musician ever in the Stones was Brian Jones, who died pretty early; he didn't

contribute to their seminal works as he died in '69. Keith Richards is a great rhythm player - I think

that's all that you can say about exemplary Stones' musicianship.

As a live act, I'd go with the Stones. But as a musician, I can't praise the Beatles enough. The

reason why we listen to albums as cohesive artistic statements is because of the Beatles; they

changed everything. Their high rating is justified!

I'm casting my vote for the Rolling Stones.

I appreciate how they stayed together as a group longer.

The Beatles were okay, don't get me wrong, but you could tell from their solo material that - as a band - their time together was limited. The members can all be appreciated as solo artists, whereas the Stones have stayed together, kept with their formula, and made consistent albums that added to their creative longevity.