Beatles vs. Stones

[btener11]

Poll question:

The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?
_________________
My voodoo master, my machine, baby, will not stand in line

[Bork]

[GARY]

I feel compelled to get in on this one because these are my #1 & #2 favorite bands.First I have a few things to say about the Rolling Stones.For what it's worth I will state a fact.The Stones were making albums before many of the people that come on this site were born & before their parents were born.& they are still making albums & touring today.(it's been a couple years but they are certain to make more music as they always do)I'm just trying to give an idea of the incredible longevity of this band.The Stones have rolled right along without missing a beat since the band lost it's founding member Brian Jones in 1969.No big deal right,easy to do hey? Not exactly.Among the instruments Brian Jones played on Stones albums are. Guitar,harmonica,keyboards,dulcimer, melatron,tambura,trumpet,sitar,oboe,recorder, percussion,saxophone,autoharp,marimba, slide guitar,banjo,clarinet,trombone,& he did backing vocals.So credit goes to the Stones for overcoming the death of Jones.Someone stated on this post that they only gave 2 Stones songs a 5.One of them being Miss You.(great song yes)But,personally,I can name 10 songs that are just as good as,or better than,Miss you that the Stones made in just the period between 1968-73.Gimme Shelter,Bitch,Tumbling Dice,You Can't Always Get What You Want,Sympathy For The Devil,Street Fighting Man,Heartbreaker & Angie.And they made a truckload of albums before that time & after.No,not every song on the Stones albums are great.Some are not even good really.But you can always be sure to find at least a couple great songs on every album.& it would be very hard for me to think of another guitar player who has created more awsomely catchy riffs in their career than Keith Richards.Or another frontman who can command huge audiences with such ease & magnetizam,even at his age,then Mick Jagger.

The Beatles have been the standard by which bands since the 60's have been measured against countless times.How many times I have heard someone say"they will be bigger then the Beatles" No,I really don't think that will ever happen.If you match the Beatles best 25 songs against the Rolling Stones I think it's a pretty close call on who's are better.It's when you go beyond those 25 that the Beatles pull away from the Stones in song Quality.Compairing the lead vocals of the Mick Jagger(some by Richards)of the Stones,to that of Harrison,McCartney,& Lennon,(some by Ringo)The Beatles have superior lyrics & vocals.I just don't think the songwriting of Jagger/Richards,though at times brilliant,can hold a candle to that of Lennon/Mcartney.Then when you factor in George Harrison who wrote great songs like,While My Guitar Gently weeps,Taxman,Something,Here Comes The Sun,Do You Want To Know a Secret & others the Beatles leave the Stones lacking in lyrical output to the incomparably prolific Beatles.Drumming is of the same quality.I really can't say between Charlie Watts & Ringo Star that one could be rated over the other.It's with the bass playing that I think the Beatles doubtlessly have an advantage.Don't get me wrong Bill Wyman certainly had his moments with the Stones.Like on the song Under My Thumb.But he's no McCartney.Wyman for many of the Stones songs was just filling in the backround.As a master of melody McCartney is in my opinion never given enough credit for just how ingenious his bass playing was & is.Anyone who has heard Beatles songs like Something,Come Together,Paperback Writer,I Want You,Taxman or Rain may already know this.McCartney,by the way,also plays guitar,piano,drums,ukulele,keyboards & mandolin.The guitar work for the Stones was done by Brian Jones,Mick Taylor,Ronnie Wood & Keith Richards.For the Beatles it's George Harrison,Paul McCartney & John Lennon.All good on the ax.I will focus on Richards & Harrison.Technically I think Harrison was a the more proficient of the two.But Richards has that down and dirty bluesy riff niche down cold.I'll say this one is pretty much a draw.In the final analisis let's look at the numbers for the Beatles.Who made their albums in the relatively short span of just 8 years.

14 #1 Albums
140,000,000 Albums sold.
1,010,000,000 Cd's,cassettes,records & bootlegs.

Rolling Stones vs Beatles winner





(((( THE BEATLES ))))




_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.

And all I got was this silly hat



.

[Hayden]

The Beatles, easy.
_________________
~Hayden
Who's Masquerade - http://www44.zippyshare.com/v/49575666/file.html

[GM84]

The Beatles vs. (anything you want) = Beatles always win.

eot
_________________
The only thing worse than bad memories is no memories at all.

[Captain_Dude]

The Beatles, definitely.

However, to me, it's like apples and oranges. They're two totally different sounds, objectives, and attitudes...I hate to compare them.
_________________
Speakers of the House DJ

[GARY]

I love to compare them. Everyone knows that these two bands competed against each other in the 60's and it IMO pushed them both to aim higher and higher with each new album they made.

I would pick the Beatles over any band PERIOD.

But I also would only place about 4 bands on the Stones level for second place.
_________________
.
I owe $100,000 and wasted 4 years of my life.

And all I got was this silly hat



.

[19loveless91]

[GARY]

[Captain_Dude]