More of a Prog Rock (Rush, Yes, Pink Floyd) and Hard Rock (The Who, Deep Purple) fan. I don’t own music from either, but forced to listen to one or the other I’d go with The Beatles. I really don’t care for Mick Jagger’s voice / vocals.
But, each of the Beatles has carried a solo career. Many of the Stones have had individual commercial success, and are certainly well respected, but nothing compared to the Beatles.
Listening preference is an individual taste and has nothing to do with being 'better', or even good. I love me some Sigue Sigue Sputnik, probably more than any Beatles song, but I would never call them better than the Beatles.
I like both bands for different reasons, they are very different.
Overall I probably spend more time listening to the Stones, but that doesn't mean I like the Beatles any less.
It's almost like asking which you prefer, classical music or jazz. They're not the same, but they both have their merits.
are my personal fave, but as far as longevity as an entity......the Stones.
I think as musicians and songwriters, the Beatles get the nod.
The innovations they created musically were game changing. As far as impact on the world stage, again.....the Beatles. They changed the landscape. I was a sophomore in high school when they came to the U.S., and that first performance on Ed Sullivan energized me.
The Beatles for me, with tons of respect going to the Stones.
I think the stones are unlistenable for the most part. The beatles have some tunes that I like. I don't seek out listening to them though. There is plenty of other music I'd much rather listen to.
The shear volume of good to great music generated by the Beatles and their descendants from the early 60's onward dwarfs what the Stones did. The Stones have done maybe 20 iconic hits in their history. They've also done a lot of crap.
I remember back in the day, radio stations would occassionally try to do a Beatles A to Z day. They couldn't even get it all in. And that didn't even include the post Beatles stuff from McCartney, Lennon and Harrison.
The shear volume of good to great music generated by the Beatles and their descendants from the early 60's onward dwarfs what the Stones did. The Stones have done maybe 20 iconic hits in their history. They've also done a lot of crap.
I remember back in the day, radio stations would occassionally try to do a Beatles A to Z day. They couldn't even get it all in. And that didn't even include the post Beatles stuff from McCartney, Lennon and Harrison.
Absolutely Apples to Oranges ....
How about the Beatles or Metalica? How about the Stones or the Temptations? It is the exact same thing.
I never considered the Beatles a great live band. They are more of studio band who mastered the art of the studio sound.
Due to the prehistoric by modern standards live sound tech at the time plus the nonstop screaming by the girls it was pretty much impossible for the Beatles to sound tight live. They couldn’t even hear themselves It would have been really interesting to hear them play live 10 years later in the mid 70’s when stage monitors better amps live mics and someone behind a mixing board who knows what they’re doing was standard
far more than the Rolling Stones.
Not saying that answers the question, but it should be pointed out. If you learn guitar or piano and go to a tutor, then sure, there are great songs and playing by the Stones, but the impact on music by The Beatles is immense, and when you start learning to play some of their songs, you realise there is genius behind it. Paul was ridiculously prolific, but John came up with some gems like Dear Prudence, Norwegian Wood, Ticket To Ride, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away and as song construction they are genius.
I think a better question would be Stones, The Who or Led Zeppelin?
But, each of the Beatles has carried a solo career. Many of the Stones have had individual commercial success, and are certainly well respected, but nothing compared to the Beatles.
Listening preference is an individual taste and has nothing to do with being 'better', or even good. I love me some Sigue Sigue Sputnik, probably more than any Beatles song, but I would never call them better than the Beatles.
Overall I probably spend more time listening to the Stones, but that doesn't mean I like the Beatles any less.
It's almost like asking which you prefer, classical music or jazz. They're not the same, but they both have their merits.
I think as musicians and songwriters, the Beatles get the nod.
The innovations they created musically were game changing. As far as impact on the world stage, again.....the Beatles. They changed the landscape. I was a sophomore in high school when they came to the U.S., and that first performance on Ed Sullivan energized me.
The Beatles for me, with tons of respect going to the Stones.
But there are like 150 or more Beatles songs I can hear on the radio without changing the channel.
The Stones are/were the better rock n roll band.
I remember back in the day, radio stations would occassionally try to do a Beatles A to Z day. They couldn't even get it all in. And that didn't even include the post Beatles stuff from McCartney, Lennon and Harrison.
I remember back in the day, radio stations would occassionally try to do a Beatles A to Z day. They couldn't even get it all in. And that didn't even include the post Beatles stuff from McCartney, Lennon and Harrison.
Absolutely Apples to Oranges ....
How about the Beatles or Metalica? How about the Stones or the Temptations? It is the exact same thing.
Also, wasn't this ? posed recently?
I never considered the Beatles a great live band. They are more of studio band who mastered the art of the studio sound.
I never considered the Beatles a great live band. They are more of studio band who mastered the art of the studio sound.
Due to the prehistoric by modern standards live sound tech at the time plus the nonstop screaming by the girls it was pretty much impossible for the Beatles to sound tight live. They couldn’t even hear themselves It would have been really interesting to hear them play live 10 years later in the mid 70’s when stage monitors better amps live mics and someone behind a mixing board who knows what they’re doing was standard
I believe Steve Van Zandt said that the first band he was into was the Dave Clark Five.
Not saying that answers the question, but it should be pointed out. If you learn guitar or piano and go to a tutor, then sure, there are great songs and playing by the Stones, but the impact on music by The Beatles is immense, and when you start learning to play some of their songs, you realise there is genius behind it. Paul was ridiculously prolific, but John came up with some gems like Dear Prudence, Norwegian Wood, Ticket To Ride, You've Got To Hide Your Love Away and as song construction they are genius.