http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Stones vs. Beatles
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3281		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Stuuuuuuu [ Fri May 07, 2010 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Stones vs. Beatles
OK, enough pussyfooting around. Let's get to some hard questions.

I want to ask who you all think is the best rock band of all time. I don't want your favorite band necessarily here, but the one you think is most influential, most foundational, and has the best songs that have wide appeal but still manage to keep artistic integrity and push their boundaries.

For simplicity, I've limited it to two options, the Beatles and the Stones. This is an age old question that's been debate by rock fans for decades.

I want to stress here that those are not my two favorite bands by any means, but that I think it is fair to place them above almost all other rock bands. You all may not agree with that, but even if you don't, I hope you'll chime in with your opinion about whom you like and respect more between the two choices.

To take a personal stand, I vote Stones. I say that mainly because I think the Stones showed more of a range of musical styles throughout their most creative periods. They could play straightforward popular rock as well any band, but they also could play delta blues numbers like "You gotta move", "King Bee", or "Little Red Rooster". They could play country numbers like "Dear Doctor" or the version of "Honky Tonk Woman" on Let it Bleed. They could also play sentimental and highly orchestrated (string sections, period instruments) numbers like "As tears go by" or "Lady Jane" that despite being super sappy, come off as beautiful and honest.

Then there's the issue of longevity, which is a dicey one. I think it counts as both a plus and a minus in the Stones case. They lasted longer than the Beatles, and for at least part of the time since the breakup of the Beatles, that was a positive for the Stones in this debate to me. Somewhere along the line (early 1980's?), they lost their credibility as a creative band, and started milking the cash cow. I don't blame them for it, but the fact that they are still "together", occaisionally producing new recordings does somehow substarct from their legacy to me.

Still, I'm going Stones. What say you?
Author:  Crosscheck [ Fri May 07, 2010 10:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Even though I'm not really a fan...I'm going to say Elvis.
Author:  Stuuuuuuu [ Sat May 08, 2010 1:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Crosscheck wrote:
Even though I'm not really a fan...I'm going to say Elvis.

I can see a good argument for that too.
Author:  Crosscheck [ Sat May 08, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Stuuuuuuu wrote:
Crosscheck wrote:
Even though I'm not really a fan...I'm going to say Elvis.

I can see a good argument for that too.

To stay within your criteria though...I'd say Stones too.
Author:  Stuuuuuuu [ Sat May 08, 2010 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I have to say I'm disappointed with the lack of response to this thread. Come on you supposed music buffs. You're never to young to appreciate the foundations of rock.
Author:  Van_Da_Man [ Sat May 08, 2010 7:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I have to say (in the context of the question) that the Beatles were the more influential band. The fact that they are still so huge now despite the murder of John, no tours or new music puts them over the top. They also put together some major orchestrated songs, including Sea of Time, Sea of Holes, Sea of Monsters, March of the Meanies and Pepperland Laid Waste.
The Beatles also came first. (only by two years though)

This is about where my knowledge of both bands ends though, I have 3 Beatles albums on my ipod, but I don't know much additional background on either band.
Author:  BagBoy [ Sun May 09, 2010 9:31 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Well, you didn't have to simplify it on my account. For me the Stones are hands down the greatest band ever. I've seen them live 4 times now. My interest in Blues, Country and traditional music was certainly piqued by these glorious deviants.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Sun May 09, 2010 9:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
bowie!
Author:  Displaced Fan [ Mon May 10, 2010 10:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
The Stones had some great songs but as far as influence I have to hand it to the Beatles. I mean they're the fucking BEATLES!

John Lennon versus Big Lipped Mick......no contest. Winner Lennon.
Author:  Los9090 [ Mon May 10, 2010 12:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Beatles or the Stones? Defenitely the Beatles
Author:  mechaphil [ Mon May 10, 2010 12:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I have to go with the Beatles. While the longevity isn't there, they made up for it in impact while they were around.

And if people tout the range of the Stones, I feel I have to tout the extensive range of the Beatles as well. Not only did they do the whole golden oldies thing, but they've got songs from a dozen different cultural influences from every inhabited continent, it seems (Rocky Raccoon may be a joke of a song, but it clearly and deftly captures the spirit of "piani" from the Wild West). Plus, as Van_da_man said, they showed a knack for composing orchestral pieces.

Plus, there's the visionary aspect of the Beatles' music. A lot of what they did shows strong aesthetic hints toward future trends in music.

I agree, Stuuuuuuuuu, that the Stones still being around subtracts from their legacy because at this point they aren't even Rolling Stones the band anymore, but Rolling Stones the brand.
Author:  useful fictions [ Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
ironyisadeadscene wrote:
bowie!


i can definitely agree with that. however, i'm going to have to go with the doors.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
morrison was great, but he was a lousy singer. that being said, i dont think any musician in history has captivated people like he has.
Author:  mechaphil [ Sun Aug 29, 2010 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I like the Doors and Bowie just fine, but they aren't anywhere near the Beatles IMO
Author:  X-pensfan [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I never liked the Stones, and I think the people that make a big deal about them are stupid.
Author:  sabretoothpick [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I don't consider the Beatles as rock, they are the greatest pop band though.
I like the stones but I voted for others as I would give my vote to the Clash.

EDIT: ...and yes I like "Straight to hell" better than MIA's "Paper Planes"
Author:  Squanto [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Staying within the context of the question, I don't think that the Stones take off like they did without the Beatles paving the road first, so I'd have to say the Beatles.
Author:  Rud [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 11:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
I enjoy the Rolling Stones more, but recognize that the Beatles had a bigger impact on music and the music industry as a whole.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 7:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Squanto wrote:
Staying within the context of the question, I don't think that the Stones take off like they did without the Beatles paving the road first, so I'd have to say the Beatles.


correct me if im wrong, because i dont care enough about either band to look it up, but didnt the stones come before the beatles? so the stones could have influenced the beatles, who took off, and thus allowed the stones to follow.

AHHH, theres a thinker.
Author:  mechaphil [ Mon Aug 30, 2010 8:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Stones vs. Beatles
Beatles formed in 1960. Stones formed in 1962.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/