Stones vs Beatles

This goes way back. During the 60's, the 2 super hot bands that came out of
England at the same time were the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.

The Stones were the bad boys, the Beatles were the choir boys. But the Beatles
changed, grew, and evolved so rapidly. They were no longer the choir boys. By 1969 it seemed they had done everything, and maybe was a reason they broke up then.

The Stones continued on, and didn't evolve like the Beatles. It is kind of amazing that
they withstood what the Beatles were accomplishing, and didn't get swept away thinking
they should do the same type of thing. But they must have had discussions about it.

Interesting topic, however I think the true champion should be determined by the fact that "the greatest music critic of all time Frank Sinatra", covered the Beatles "Something", and nothing from the RS. Both bands were and are legends and their music will play for many years to come.

Frank Sinatra was a hack lounge singer. The Stones are the better band.

I gotta go with the Beatles.

Beatles were better (62-67) but the psychedelic influence got overdone. The stones started getting better (68-75) which IMO outdid anything the Beatles ever put out in their later years. Lucy in the Sky doesn't compare to Jumpin Jack Flash. Come together vs Gimme Shelter? It's obvious who takes the throne

Beatles were better (62-67) but the psychedelic influence got overdone. The stones started getting better (68-75) which IMO outdid anything the Beatles ever put out in their later years. Lucy in the Sky doesn't compare to Jumpin Jack Flash. Come together vs Gimme Shelter? It's obvious who takes the throne Originally Posted by BrianJones69

I could be wrong because it's not my era but did the Stones have the same global appeal as the Beatles?

I could be wrong because it's not my era but did the Stones have the same global appeal as the Beatles? Originally Posted by Sistine Chapel

Due to the fact they were being compared to the Beatles. This question is as old as the bands themselves

The Beatles came up with a lot of interesting songs, example Sgt Pepper theme song, Within You Without You that were way beyond anything the Stones were doing at that time. The Stones came up with a lot of good riffs and beats later on like Can't you hear me knocking.

Interesting notes are that these 2 bands were in competition with each other, but were very different. In the Vietnam war time, they were both asked to make statements about the war and the war movement. The Stones made a song about it, I forget the name. In response, the Beatles came up with Revolution.

Another interesting note is that rock and roll bands appear to be counterculture, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are some of the hardest working people looking to make a fortune. Mick Jagger was going to attend the London School of Economics, but discovered he could make a bundle playing rock. John Lennon had one or more Rolls Royce cars. Sometimes you feel sorry for the people that attended the concerts, got wasted, and went no where.

I have the Discographies of both bands but there's no way I'm listening to all that shit. lol

I like the Beatles more than the Stones. Seems like the Stones best work was in the late 60s with Brian Jones

Mick Jagger was going to attend the London School of Economics, but discovered he could make a bundle playing rock. John Lennon had one or more Rolls Royce cars.. Originally Posted by VitaMan

I remember BB King said when he played gospel everyone just complement his playing. When he played blues everyone started tipping him money

Don't forget Led Zeppelin, The Who and the rest of the British Invasion. It was a great time for rock music. There is a concert in October called Desert Trip. Night one. The Rolling Stones followed by Bob Dylan. Night two. Neil Young followed by Paul McCarney. Night three. Roger Waters (Pink Floyd) followed by The Who. I will comment on who is the best after the concert.

There were plenty of great American bands during that period. The Doors and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young were my favorite at the time.

Why limit greatness to those two bands?

The Stones were much more blues influenced and had more accomplished musicians. The Beatles were much more pop and sold lots of records.

Yes the Stones were very blues influenced, while the Beatles started out being influenced by Buddy Holly and Roy Orbison. In fact they got the idea of their name from Buddy Holly's group, the Crickets.

The thing is the Beatles had morphed by the end of the 60's into something almost completely different. You kind of wondered where they could go from there. While the Stones stayed the same, with primarily one person singing.

I love both band but I'm definitely more of a Beatles fan. They were both ground breaking in their own ways but The Beatles wanted to and did progress music in general whereas the Stones seemed to just want to advance rock 'n' roll & blues.

I wonder which band got more pussy though. Might have to go with the Stones.

Mick Jagger was the one of the ugliest muthafuckas in rock music but he was getting all kinds of pussy from all races of women.