for display only
Big Blue Interactive The Corner Forum  
Back to the Corner

Archived Thread

NFT: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Grey Pilgrim : 6/2/2024 7:51 am
I prefer the Stones.

To me the Beatles are more Pop and the Stones are more Rock and Roll.

JMO

And You?
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Del  
AROCK1000 : 6/2/2024 8:27 pm : link
In comment 16529494 Del Shofner said:
Quote:
- I don't think the Stones did that.

But the Stones are/were a better rock band as such.

Agreed and I think even the Beatles would agree...
They were a pop band who reached heights never seen before or since...
But in terms of stripped down rock n roll...the Stones had em
It’s all about preference  
djm : 6/2/2024 9:07 pm : link
But no band produced to the level or displayed the big hits batting average that the Beatles displayed. Pick a random song from the Beatles, just throw a dart wt their entire catalogue and there’s a better than average chance you picked a great song. Or a “hit.”

Seinfeld said it best. No musical act In recorded history ever reached the popularity of peak that the beatles did right around the time of their last live show, or right before rubber soul. Right about that time as the Beatles peak of popularity was at its very peak, a peak never seen before in history, what did the Beatles do next? They got even better. They went into the studios and embarked on a run of albums that produced the most successful or consistent run of hits ever. At their peak of popularity they got even better.

To me it’s the Beatles. The Stones had an insanely great peak too and their longevity (mick and Keith) has reached laughable proportions but no one had a better peak than John, Paul, George and Ringo. Shit even their solo works are fantastic.
I said peak 2000 times in one fucking post  
djm : 6/2/2024 9:08 pm : link
I need a timeout. Apologies.
RE: Stones  
djm : 6/2/2024 9:13 pm : link
In comment 16529136 bobc said:
Quote:
One was singing that they wanted to hold your hand while the other was singing about satisfaction. Different level of song writing.


Guy I work with always takes this sort of stance that the Beatles were kiddie rock. Nonsense. They started off that way (hold your hand and whatever else early on ) but rubber soul through let it be saw them evolve immensely into complex and provocative song writing. Even Help was mature or pushing the envelop for its time. Not to detract from the stones of course. They definitely wrote amazing and dark shit in their own right. Two of the very best.
RE: I said peak 2000 times in one fucking post  
Del Shofner : 6/2/2024 9:13 pm : link
In comment 16529539 djm said:
Quote:
I need a timeout. Apologies.


haha - but you're right. The Beatles had higher peaks, perhaps never to be replicated, but the Stones are a longer-running act. The years while and right after the Beatles were breaking up, the Stones put out a string of the best rock albums ever. And they still exist, they get credit for that!
The Beatles  
uconngiant : 6/2/2024 9:36 pm : link
They played Blues, some jazz, rock, and pop of course. Their influence was more than music in was the culture as well
With the Stones  
HardTruth : 6/2/2024 10:21 pm : link
The older I get the more I like them

And its not meant to be a knock on the Beatles
RE: Love them both.  
short lease : 6/3/2024 2:19 am : link
In comment 16529127 Crispino said:
Quote:
Different styles, both prolific, both influential.


Same here ... comparing the Stones to the Beatles though is like comparing Apples to Oranges.

The Beatles were a pop/rock vocal band ... the Stones were a R&B/Blues band who became popish.

If you are comparing the 2 - you are not really a student of the lineage of music. Which is fine but, the 2 bands are so different. Most people think they are same "apple" because they are both from England in the 60's ... they are not.

Comparing the Beatles to the Stones is almost like comparing the Beatles to Black Sabbath (maybe that is a bit of a stretch?) but, the Stones and the Beatles are very far apart style wise.
RE: The Beatles  
short lease : 6/3/2024 2:28 am : link
In comment 16529548 uconngiant said:
Quote:
They played Blues, some jazz, rock, and pop of course. Their influence was more than music in was the culture as well


So true ... the Beatles didn't only influence music/musicians of their generation they also influenced an entire culture of their generation! Music, hair style, fashion, speech, etc .... it goes on forever.

I once read a list made by historians of the top 100 events that influenced American history. I think #1 was Columbus discovering America. Then things like the Pilgrims landing on Plymouth rock, Revolutionary war, etc ... Some where around the 70's position - was the Beatles playing on Ed Sullivan. Their influence cannot be measured or over estimated.
RE: Stones  
rnargi : 6/3/2024 8:51 am : link
In comment 16529136 bobc said:
Quote:
One was singing that they wanted to hold your hand while the other was singing about satisfaction. Different level of song writing.


Fun fact. The Stones first top 20 hit was I Want To Be Your Man. Written for them by the Beates.
Stones for me, although I do like both  
PatersonPlank : 6/3/2024 9:39 am : link
Now the real question is the Stones vs the Beach Boys (LOL).
RE: With the Stones  
djm : 6/3/2024 11:53 am : link
In comment 16529562 HardTruth said:
Quote:
The older I get the more I like them

And its not meant to be a knock on the Beatles


This is me too. Stones are growing on me more and more as I get older.
Pages: 1 2 <<Prev | Show All |
Back to the Corner