Stones vs Beatles
Well..which is it?
In 1979, our friends in Canada taught us that there is no need to choose. The Beatles and the Stones go well together. Just listen to the song "I Like to Rock" by April Wine.
well i don't like either but i'll take the stones by default due to the fact that the beatles were a boy band that did shitty rip offs of american rock n roll. fuckin mop top sissies.
I will always go for the Beatles. They are almost like listening to Motown and most of the time you get the same effect after listening to them which is feeling a lot better about things. Stones are great but it's grittier, it's bluesy, and as far as my choice goes, they are harder to sing with than the Beatles. Also if you don't feel better about your life after listening to All You Need Is Love then you've got major problems. You're too damn cool for the room! Enjoy it!
Remember that the Stones had some 1:30 second pop shit. It's just cooler to say Stones now because they've always been the underdogs.
Just because I heard I wanna Hold your Hand before I heard any Stones....It has to be the Beatles for me
And Ron's brother's back at home with his beatles and his stones
Ron never got it off on that revolution stuff
What a drag too many snags
Much like Fez...I could care less about this argument... more concerned with carefully choosing my Eliminator pick this week!!!
Stones all the way. I'm rock and roll at heart. Beatles started off well with the generic pop but once they went hippy and preachy I can't stand them. Also Stones have been performing consistently since 1962 without destroying their image completely. If Lennon lived he would've fucked up the Beatles legacy by being an opinionated prick or just plain selling out completely.
until keith's book Life i would have said the beatles without even thinking about it. that book opened me up to a new life... a life where the stones reign supreme.
Give me the Stones. Not a huge fan of either but if Paint It Black or Ruby Tuesday come on the radio, I'm singing along quite happily.
If Nazi's have my parents, I'm saying Beatles. If the Russians have my parents, I'm calling their bluff. We won the Cold War bitches!
Despite being born on the day of the Altamont Festival, I'm taking The Beatles 330 electoral votes to 206.
Exactly. Throw in the Meat Men, too, with an updated "2 Down, 2 To Go."
@seamus98 cos the three live beatles shows were so amazing?
I agree. The Stones were flat out rock. The Beatles could play anything. Rock (Helter Skelter or The Ballad of John & Yoko), Pop (Well, just about the rest of their catalog), 40's music (When I'm 64 and Honey Pie), Country (Don't Pass Me By and Rocky Raccoon) and they did it well. Both bands were good at what they did. But, could you imagine The Stones doing something like Honey Pie?
If you were around in 63-64 like I was and heard the Beatles after listening to all that Street Corner Doo Wop stuff, I think you would have a different opinion. I knew I had finally found my music when my parents didn't like them!? I liked them both equally as well as the Who, Zepplin and the Kinks.
@ShowerBench the only thing the beatles do for is get a stupid song gets stuck in my head. That i hate
@ShowerBench And the stones inspire me getting gacked out of my own head.
@Docintoxicated I'm not someone who cares much about "selling out" but I'm not sure what Lennon could've done to sell out more than the Stones have.
@Dead SkippyThat's exactly why i love the Stones.
@CamfromToronto It's only really "selling out" if you take a stance against it. But look at how much more commercial friendly the Beatles music is, strawberry fields selling whole foods, a hard day's night selling scented douches, Help selling the easy button from staples... I mean the possibilities are substantial. Lennon was a snotty suburban kid with outspoken opinions, sooner or later he would've pissed off a lot of his fans.
@Pepper Hicks Coughing Fit it goes like this. We all live in the yellow submarine yellow submarine oh wait... lolol bite me lolol