Best Ever Albums

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

AwesomeDavid107 — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:40:40 GMT

Author: AwesomeDavid107

Posted: 03/24/2012 01:40

The Beatles have more albums that I like while The Stones albums I like, I like more than The Beatles albums.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

BlueNote — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:29:09 GMT

Author: BlueNote

Posted: 03/18/2012 19:29

First for the necessary qualifications: I have six Beatles albums (Abbey, White, Revolver, Rubber, Hearts, plus that '67-'70 compilation). It is not that I dislike the Beatles, I just don't enjoy them.

Here's best way I can explain it: I like my Scotch and have a good number of bottles in my house including Johnny Walker Blue Label and Lagavulin 16. The Blue Label is in many ways a superior scotch to Lagavulin. In fact, it is almost impossible to point anything wrong with the Blue Label. However, it lacks the vitality of Lagavulin. Lagavulin is peaty and smokey with loads of character. In may not be as perfect as the Blue Label, but Lagavulin engenders a visceral response the Blue Label does not.

The Beatles are like Blue Label. "Let It Be", for example, may be a perfectly constructed and executed song. It is almost impossible to point out anything wrong with it. However, I will always prefer "Loving Cup". It has more character, it is a bit more dirty, a bit less housebroken.

Like Blue Label, more people will always prefer The Beatles. That is fine. They can have it. I'll keep my peaty scotch and dirty rock.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Hayden — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 13:03:02 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 03/18/2012 17:03

Bork wrote:

The mass of quality stuff the Stones put out is unequaled in the history of music which is why I rank them as the #2 band in the history of music. Here are the two contestants' albums ranked (top 200 entries only):

#23 TW - Who's Next
#31 RS - Exile on Main Street
#40 RS - Let It Bleed
#86 RS - Beggars Banquet
#144 RS - Sticky Fingers
#193 TW - Tommy

... 😨 Oops.

My vote goes to the Beatles.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

alelsupreme — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 12:50:22 GMT

Author: alelsupreme

Posted: 03/18/2012 16:50

I think your in the wrong thread.

here's what the overall chart (top 500 only) has to say:

#3 TB Revolver
#4 TB Abbey Road
#5 TB Sgt Peppers
#7 TB The Beatles
#18 TB Rubber Soul
#28 RS Exile On Main St.
#41 RS Let It Bleed
#76 RS Sticky Fingers
#79 TB Magical Mystery Tour
#101 RS Beggars Banquet
#169 TB Let It Be
#194 TB Help!
#198 TB A Hard Day's Night
#401 TB Please Please Me
#427 RS Some Girls
#433 RS Aftermath

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Bork — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 10:48:22 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 03/18/2012 14:48

The mass of quality stuff the Stones put out is unequaled in the history of music which is why I rank them as the #2 band in the history of music. Here are the two contestants' albums ranked (top 200 entries only):

#23 TW - Who's Next
#31 RS - Exile on Main Street
#40 RS - Let It Bleed
#86 RS - Beggars Banquet
#144 RS - Sticky Fingers
#193 TW - Tommy

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Facetious — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:47:00 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 03/17/2012 04:47

The Beatles. The Rolling Stones' music was fun, but too many times it got unimaginative. Yes, they have giants like Exile on Main St. and Beggars Banquet. But I'll take The Beatles and Revolver over them any day. Also, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and Magical Mystery Tour are better than Their Satanic Majesties Request.

The Beatles had more variety, and sometimes, could even beat the Stones at their own game (see: Helter Skelter, Yer Blues, Revolution). Now, could the Stones have made brilliant experimental classics like The Beatles? No.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Facetious — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 00:29:37 GMT

Author: Facetious

Posted: 03/17/2012 04:29

Cryptozoologist wrote:

thomas697 wrote:

too many songs

Yellow Submarine
Bungalow Bill

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the complete list of songs the Beatles wrote for children. Wow, what a list.

You missed All Together Now and Octopus's Garden 🤣

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

altcountryguitar — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 18:33:19 GMT

Author: altcountryguitar

Posted: 03/16/2012 22:33

Like comparing apples and long red tongues. You need hydrogen AND oxygen to make water, Sparky. Both seminal rock and roll bands. You can fight about this one till Armageddon. Me? I'm taking "Exile" AND "Rubber Soul" with me to that desert island, and god help the monkey that tries to steal either one from me.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

GARY — Sat, 1 Jan 2011 07:07:35 GMT

Author: GARY

Posted: 01/01/2011 12:07

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

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Anonymous — Wed, 1 Sep 2010 15:59:22 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 09/01/2010 19:59

You know what surprises me so much? The amount of albums The Rolling Stones actually released. You've got exile on main street near the top but at least a dozen have probably yet to get on chart. Bob Dylan's discography is the same but that's another story!

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Mr. Shankly — Wed, 1 Sep 2010 14:29:18 GMT

Author: Mr. Shankly

Posted: 09/01/2010 18:29

I've been going back and listening to some of the Stones early albums, and as far as albums go, The Beatles developed much faster than the Stones. The Stones weren't as prolific songwriters as the The Beatles and often filled holes on their albums with live cuts of them doing R&B covers. I mean that was their forte. They did R&B really well, but they weren't in the same league, songwriting-wise. The Stones didn't make their first truly great album until Aftermath (1966). By that time, The Beatles had already released A Hard Day's Night, Help!, and Rubber Soul, three much better crafted albums. It's no contest really. Granted The Stones were on a roll in the late sixties and early seventies, but in terms of album quality, The Beatles win by a mile.

Now when it comes to singles, The Stones held their own most of the time with the Beatles, but not with albums until the late sixties.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:03:03 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/25/2010 03:03

.a

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Anonymous — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 01:33:52 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/24/2010 05:33

The Rolling Stones had greater riffs and some great song, but the Beatles had better songs on the whole. The Beatles perfected a song in less than 4 minutes, while the Stones usually dragged it out (uslesly, for a solo); what Stones song is better than Norwegian Wood or Helter Skelter or For No One?

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Anonymous — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:03:27 GMT

Author: Anonymous

Posted: 08/22/2010 13:03

I enjoy more Beatles songs than the rolling stones.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

haleyyew — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 20:19:19 GMT

Author: haleyyew

Posted: 08/22/2010 00:19

beatles has less materials, but more fullfilling

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Bork — Tue, 6 Jul 2010 08:05:21 GMT

Author: Bork

Posted: 07/06/2010 12:05

Well, that's the #1 and #2 band in the world. The by far most influential band in the world (The Beatles) and the longest lasting rock & roll act in the world (The Rolling Stones). Up until somewhere in my mid-20's I used to think the Stones were the better of the two and that the Beatles were too lightweight and dated. Since that I have realized I was dead wrong about that. The Beatles were brilliant in their songwriting and in their performance, and they sound as fresh today as they did in the 60's. On my list The Beatles hold the #1 spot.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

ffudnebbuh — Sun, 4 Jul 2010 07:55:53 GMT

Author: ffudnebbuh

Posted: 07/04/2010 11:55

I agree with Mr. Shankly...
For me, they come from two completely different places. The Stones are one of the last great blues based rock bands...and the beatles are the first really great studio bands creating non blues based rock for the most part..their contribution is to what a pop song could be and sound like, they pioneered recording techniques that are still in use today. I was just surprised at how good the Stones sounded when I listened to their most popular downloads at Amazon...So I love them both for different reasons. My fav Beatles songs are "Paperback Writer" and "Strawberry Fields" and my Fav Stones songs are 'Tumbling Dice" and "Paint it Black".

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

thomas697 — Sun, 4 Jul 2010 04:46:03 GMT

Author: thomas697

Posted: 07/04/2010 08:46

Cryptozoologist wrote:

thomas697 wrote:

too many songs

Yellow Submarine
Bungalow Bill

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the complete list of songs the Beatles wrote for children. Wow, what a list.

It wouldn't matter if they only had one .. In no way is it in a bands best interest to sing songs for kids, when the a lot of their musics themes aren't appropriate for children ie Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds. Its just marketing for the sake of marketing, the same bullshit propaganda that keeps them famous now.

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

cartoken — Sun, 4 Jul 2010 01:03:37 GMT

Author: cartoken

Posted: 07/04/2010 05:03

i've heard two albums from both bands and the rolling stones's are better. the The Rolling Stones are ranked 62 in my list of best artists and the Beatles are only in the 92#. plus i haven't rated any 5/5 song from the Beatles, but i have 2 from the rolling stones : Miss You, and (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction

so i guess The Rolling Stones are better !

Re: Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones

Cryptozoologist — Sat, 3 Jul 2010 23:14:36 GMT

Author: Cryptozoologist

Posted: 07/04/2010 03:14

[quote="thomas697"] too many songs[/quote]

Yellow Submarine
Bungalow Bill

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the complete list of songs the Beatles wrote for children. Wow, what a list.