Beatles or Stones?

[RobMoney]

Vote now,...


Who was the better band in your opinion?

[PaddyBoy]

The Beatles all the way, the originals and best. I'm a fan of both bands, but the Beatles are king.

[roni]

yeah, but the stones have a pirate in their band.

but, my vote goes to the beatles.

[Futterman's]

I think The Beatles is the more Hyper-rated band of all the time(But,I like)

[ms.peachy]

Hmmm. Tough one, because what does "better" mean?

I think that the Beatles were more stylistically innovative, and were overall probably better songwriters.

However, I just never ever ever get tired of listening to the Rolling Stones and enjoy thier music a bit more, even though it is not as varied.

So, who does that make the "better" band?

[PaddyBoy]

Hmmm. Tough one, because what does "better" mean?

I think that the Beatles were more stylistically innovative, and were overall probably better songwriters.

However, I just never ever ever get tired of listening to the Rolling Stones and enjoy thier music a bit more, even though it is not as varied.

So, who does that make the "better" band?

The Beatles.

[RobMoney]

Hmmm. Tough one, because what does "better" mean?

I think that the Beatles were more stylistically innovative, and were overall probably better songwriters.

However, I just never ever ever get tired of listening to the Rolling Stones and enjoy thier music a bit more, even though it is not as varied.

So, who does that make the "better" band?


It's all arbitrary,...I agree

Better is whatever YOU think it is.....it's just YOUR opinion.

[ASsman]

Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust.

[RobMoney]

Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust.


Thank You for your support ASsman :)

[ASsman]

(y)

[Sandinista!]

Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust.

Yes.

Stones, by default. Unless some credible source indicates otherwise, Ringo and the gang didn't engineer "Sympathy for the Devil" or "Emotional Rescue."

[RobMoney]

John Lennon vs. Mick Jagger....singer/ songwriter/ frontman

Jagger is clearly the better performer and vocalist, but I acknowledge Lennon's songwriting genius and what he stood for. John Lennon got real weird after he met Yoko and created some absolute crap and was basically stealing money from his fans. He clearly fell off near the end. Mick never let women affect his art and is still producing relevant music to this day,.....50 years kids, respect. For arguments sake we'll call it a tie.

advantage: Tie


Paul McCartney vs. Keith Richards.....guitarists

Not even close here,....no need to go any further than the guitar work of "Sympathy", "Gimme Shelter", or "Satisfaction". McCartney is far and away the better songwriter, but Keef blows him away as far as pure guitar playing goes.

advantage: Stones


George Harrison vs. Bill Wyman.....Bass guitar

I'll give the edge the George on this one. Even though he creeps me out.

advantage: Beatles


Ringo Star vs. Charlie Watts....Drums

Not even a competition again, Ringo was there purely for asthetics. No real musical talent. Charlie Watts is one of the greatest drummers in Rock and Roll history.

advantage: Stones


Overall, my opinion is the advantage goes to the Stones

[likeOMG!]

I wonder if I influenced you to start this thread....

BEATLES

[RobMoney]

I wonder if I influenced you to start this thread....

BEATLES


absolutely,

you & A to Z inspired the question to be asked.

[likeOMG!]

absolutely,

you & A to Z inspired the question to be asked.
I feel, honored ;)

[abcdefz]

Phony Beatlemania has bitten the dust.


...they were referring to the Knack.

[abcdefz]

John Lennon got real weird after he met Yoko and created some absolute crap and was basically stealing money from his fans. He clearly fell off near the end. Mick never let women affect his art and is still producing relevant music to this day




Paul McCartney vs. Keith Richards.....guitarists

Not even close here,....no need to go any further than the guitar work of "Sympathy", "Gimme Shelter", or "Satisfaction". McCartney is far and away the better songwriter, but Keef blows him away as far as pure guitar playing goes.

advantage: Stones


George Harrison vs. Bill Wyman.....Bass guitar

I'll give the edge the George on this one. Even though he creeps me out.

advantage: Beatles


Stones


Overall, my opinion is the advantage goes to the Stones




Rob -- are you trying to be funny?

Mick never let women go to his head? Lennon was stealing from his fans? Mick is still producing relevant music?

Paul McCartney was the bassist; George Harrison played guitar.

[abcdefz]

I think the Stones were a better band per se -- as in "group of musicians," but I think the Beatles' music, overall, is better. The Stones' stuff is amazing, but it's pretty nihilistic and full of posing.

[likeOMG!]

I could never get into the Stones for some reason. I also have a small Beatles obsession. I'm biased I guess.

[Bank Cashier]

Rob -- are you trying to be funny?

Mick never let women go to his head? Lennon was stealing from his fans? Mick is still producing relevant music?

Paul McCartney was the bassist; George Harrison played guitar.


I was hoping someone would point this out.

[yeahwho]

It was never a competition, always a co-operation (album releases, media engagements, political awareness). Then the Beatles broke up.....amazing the hard ass lives the Stones have led, and yet half the Beatles are dead.

I am going to give the slight nod to the Beatles because of the "Growth Spurt" `tween `63-69 demonstrated by this band. Legendary in all aspects of Music. The evolving from "She Loves You, Yeah, Yeah, Yeah" to "She came in Through the Bathroom Window" is off the chart by any standard.

[Documad]

Rob -- are you trying to be funny?
Good grief, I sincerely hope so!

[RobMoney]

DOH!

I have never been into the Beatles all that much,....guess it shows!

[cosmo105]

ahem motherfuckers (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=36705)

[yeahwho]

ahem motherfuckers (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=36705)

C'mon....that was last years poll, jeez. Things have changed since then. This is 2005, it's like the all new Corolla.

[afronaut]

Charlie Watts is one of the greatest drummers in Rock and Roll history.

What? I won't argue that Ringo was a better drummer, Charlie Watts clearly had more talent, but wtf? Charlie Watts is far from being a "great" drummer, much less one of the "greatest". Give me a break.

[Documad]

^^ I'm going to try and forget you said that.

Btw - did you see that Charlie made Vanity Fair's best dressed list? And he's supposed to be the most polite guy in rock history.

[Sandinista!]

What? I won't argue that Ringo was a better drummer, Charlie Watts clearly had more talent, but wtf? Charlie Watts is far from being a "great" drummer, much less one of the "greatest". Give me a break.

Ringo's bland, and so is Watts. Mediocrity isn't greatness.

Now Bonzo... there's a drummer you can set your watch to.

[RobMoney]

Ringo's bland, and so is Watts. Mediocrity isn't greatness.

Now Bonzo... there's a drummer you can set your watch to.



Thats not even fair to bring Bonham into the debate.

[RobMoney]

What? I won't argue that Ringo was a better drummer, Charlie Watts clearly had more talent, but wtf? Charlie Watts is far from being a "great" drummer, much less one of the "greatest". Give me a break.



Oh yea!!??!?!?!!.....well that's just like,..... your opinion and stuff. :cool:





Watts obviously isn't Moon or Bonham, but I think he is one of the greats, he's just not very flamboyant, he's a true brit, very reserved.

[abcdefz]

Ringo's a dead-straight drummer without a lot of imagination (though his solo on Abbey Road is one of my favorite drum solos); Charlie Watts had that great feel that jazzheads playing rock sometimes do. I think they're both more than servicable for their bands, but I don't know about "great drummers." I'd probably take Moe Tucker over either of them.

[Freebasser]

I meant to vote Stones not Beatles.

Damn my eyesight! :(

[Penny Lane]

Beatles, for obvious reasons. :rolleyes: