You know what lives under STONES, freakin BEATLES!!

Take that which ever way you wanna take it.

The Beatles for me definitely, but both are great bands. So many fantastic songs...

I love both. I enjoy the Stones more (uptempo songs), however, the Beatles are the better band.

duccichucka said:

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've nothing against the Beatles, per se - and I daresay they represented something very exciting if you were living through those times. It's just that looking back, with the benefit of a wider view, the status they're given is difficult to justify.

They were influential on certain strands of music, but they were as influenced as they were influential. And if you compare them to the stuff they were copying, they don't come up well. I mean, whatever way you slice it, they just ain't that great at their instruments, nor are they anything special as a band. Next to, say, Booker T and the MG's, The Funk Brothers or The Swampers they're laughably second-rate and lack anything like the same musicality. The Stones aren't virtuosic individually, but they come together well as a unit and are capable of getting a groove off the ground.

Of course, what people often say is that The Beatles developed beyond that into this more artsy, songwriterly direction. But even on that score, I think others like Dylan were far more sophisticated in what they were doing at that time. And, as I've said before, I think Jagger's an underrated songwriter - as you can hear on, say, Sympathy for the Devil or Gimme Shelter. Plus some of The Beatles' 'experimental' stuff that they're so fêted for is just turgid 60s indulgence. Even from their own catalogue, I'll take Hey Jude or Let It Be over Sgt Mustard's Silver Octopus (or whatever) any day of the week!

Leaving aside the comparison with The Stones, I just don't like this tendency to put The Beatles at the top of the tree when it comes to popular music. They were of course an important act and a lot of things came together and reached a mass audience through them, but all sorts of strands of present-day music had precious little to do with them (hip hop, EDM, etc); all sorts of contemporary acts in their time were far in advance of what they were capable of (James Brown, Hendrix, Nina Simone, Ray Charles); and other acts and currents from the period were easily as influential (Motown, Ray Charles, etc). They're important and a good band, but they still get too much acclaim, as I see it.

[Edited 11/18/14 4:27am]

deebee said:

Even from their own catalogue, I'll take Hey Jude or Let It Be over Sgt Mustard's Silver Octopus (or whatever) any day of the week!

LMAO!!

added as fave song on my profile LOL

PANDURITO said:

Who won?

stones

BombSquad said:

deebee said:

Even from their own catalogue, I'll take Hey Jude or Let It Be over Sgt Mustard's Silver Octopus (or whatever) any day of the week!

LMAO!!

added as fave song on my profile LOL

It's been hailed by critics as one of their most important 'experimental' works.

deebee said:

duccichucka said:

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've nothing against the Beatles, per se - and I daresay they represented something very exciting if you were living through those times. It's just that looking back, with the benefit of a wider view, the status they're given is difficult to justify.

They were influential on certain strands of music, but they were as influenced as they were influential. And if you compare them to the stuff they were copying, they don't come up well. I mean, whatever way you slice it, they just ain't that great at their instruments, nor are they anything special as a band. Next to, say, Booker T and the MG's, The Funk Brothers or The Swampers they're laughably second-rate and lack anything like the same musicality. The Stones aren't virtuosic individually, but they come together well as a unit and are capable of getting a groove off the ground.

Of course, what people often say is that The Beatles developed beyond that into this more artsy, songwriterly direction. But even on that score, I think others like Dylan were far more sophisticated in what they were doing at that time. And, as I've said before, I think Jagger's an underrated songwriter - as you can hear on, say, Sympathy for the Devil or Gimme Shelter. Plus some of The Beatles' 'experimental' stuff that they're so fêted for is just turgid 60s indulgence. Even from their own catalogue, I'll take Hey Jude or Let It Be over Sgt Mustard's Silver Octopus (or whatever) any day of the week!

Leaving aside the comparison with The Stones, I just don't like this tendency to put The Beatles at the top of the tree when it comes to popular music. They were of course an important act and a lot of things came together and reached a mass audience through them, but all sorts of strands of present-day music had precious little to do with them (hip hop, EDM, etc); all sorts of contemporary acts in their time were far in advance of what they were capable of (James Brown, Hendrix, Nina Simone, Ray Charles); and other acts and currents from the period were easily as influential (Motown, Ray Charles, etc). They're important and a good band, but they still get too much acclaim, as I see it.

[Edited 11/18/14 4:27am]

Agreed but I'd knock even further down the chain. I'd rate them average at best.

Stones for sure. Yes, the Beatles are overrated to the point of eye-rolling, but they WERE forward-thinking musicians and arguably the first band to truly use a recording studio as an instrument.

But there's something a little dangerous about the Stones and perhaps a little more blue-collar as well. Put it this way: If I went to a bar with The Beatles, I'd more than likely be casually sipping on an over-priced Merlot, but I know I'd have much more fun slamming down Jameson and gingers with The Rolling Stones. I hope that cheeky metaphor makes sense lol

deebee said:

BombSquad said:

LMAO!!

added as fave song on my profile LOL

It's been hailed by critics as one of their most important 'experimental' works.

don't get me wrong, I love the Beatles (more than the Stones to answer the original topic) , they were highly creative, and when they where good they were really good.

but when they sucked, they REALY sucked. and you managed to merge three of their most annoying kiddie songs into one, hehe loveit

With all due respect, the Beatles revolutionized pop music. The middle eight, the harmonies, the chord progression, the later fuzz, the psychodelica - the Beatles did it all. I doubt you'd find a musician worth their salt that wouldn't place the Beatles at the top of the list when it comes to contributions to music. There's no one else even close IMO.

The Stones are a great band, and have written tremendous songs. They didn't break a whole lot of ground musically, but so what? Their catalogue surpasses almost any other rock band's.

RodeoSchro said:

With all due respect, the Beatles revolutionized pop music. The middle eight, the harmonies, the chord progression, the later fuzz, the psychodelica - the Beatles did it all. I doubt you'd find a musician worth their salt that wouldn't place the Beatles at the top of the list when it comes to contributions to music. There's no one else even close IMO.

The Stones are a great band, and have written tremendous songs. They didn't break a whole lot of ground musically, but so what? Their catalogue surpasses almost any other rock band's.

but it's not about.. who had the biggest contribution to music?

it's about.. who's music do you feel the most when you listen to it? ... because at the end of the day, that's all that really matters

for me, it's the stones

Graycap23 said:

SuperSoulFighter said:

Graycap23 said: Same here. As much as I love my LP collection, nothing beats a band on stage before an audience.

4 me, if u can't do it live, there is no reason 4 me 2 listen 2 your records.

This would matter to me if I were actually seeing or listening to the band play live, but I'm not. I'm listening to the studio albums so how those sound is most important to me.

Beatles all the way!!

no competition!

Stones by a land mile.

TD3 said:

The Stones, hands down. I like some of the things the Beatles did, but their music is too middle of the road for my taste. The Stones can and do get you off your butt to dance.

Same for me. I preferred The Beatles when they were a pop ditty band doing R&B covers - but still my parents' generation refuse to believe they ever ripped anyone off, whereas The Stones always wore their influences on their sleeve and went out of their way to champion the ones that came before them.

When The Beatles started "innovating" I just generally hate the sound. George Harrison's compositions are actually all my favourite Beatles songs. They knock Lennon/McCartney out of the park every day for me.

Yes, I may be fundamentally wrong but it's the way I feel.