Who was the greatest, The Beatles or Stones?

Nov 23, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Tahoe Daily Tribune

What: Beatles vs. Stones When: 7:30 p.m. Friday and Saturday, Nov. 23-24 Where: Harrah's South Shore Room Tickets: $22 STATELINE, Nev.

Comments
1 - 20 of 104 Comments Last updated Mar 21, 2013
First Prev
of 6
Next Last
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 24, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Boy, that sure is a loaded question. I love both, but I'm much more of a Beatles fan than a Stones fan. So, my opinion might be a little a bias. So, I will base my opinion on accomplishments. And, if you compare the two on that, their really is no comparrison. Sure, the Stones have been around a lot longer, but they stll haven't matched the Beatles in sales. The Stones have been at it for 50 years, the Beatles only recorded as a group for 8 years. Plus, the Beatles had 27 #1 hits, I don't know how many the Stones have, but I do know it's nowhere close to 27. So, I would have to say, based on success alone, the Beatles are greater than the Stones.
Literacy is a Life Goal

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Dec 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Also, the Beatles had a greater influence on music, culture, fashion, entertainment and history.

Plus they could outsell the Stones individually too. What great stuff did Keith or Mick do solo-wise? Plus they didnt let Ron Wood, Mick Taylor, Bill Wyman or Charlie Watts write songs.
JDe

Flemington, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Led Zeppelin crushes both of them.
Literacy is a Life Goal

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Dec 8, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

only if it landed on stage while both bands were playing.
Will T

Surrey, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Which group created such out-of-control hysteria they couldn't even carry on performing anymore?
The Stones are a top performing group, but only because their audiences never destroyed stadiums, kept their screaming at a reasonable level and actually came to hear the music?
And finally, which group paved the way for the British Invasion? Would the Stones have even made it without The Beatles opening the doors to the rest of the world?
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Will T wrote:
Which group created such out-of-control hysteria they couldn't even carry on performing anymore?
The Stones are a top performing group, but only because their audiences never destroyed stadiums, kept their screaming at a reasonable level and actually came to hear the music?
And finally, which group paved the way for the British Invasion? Would the Stones have even made it without The Beatles opening the doors to the rest of the world?
Good point Will. The Beatles were the leaders of the British invation no doubt.
King Elvis

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The Stones were better because they ROCKED and kicked ass.

The Beatles, as good as they were, are still the most overrated band ever.

They were the first big boy band; they were a pop band.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Dec 13, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

King Elvis wrote:
The Stones were better because they ROCKED and kicked ass.
The Beatles, as good as they were, are still the most overrated band ever.
They were the first big boy band; they were a pop band.
Not entirely. at first they were pop but by Rubber soul they no longer were just Pop and Sargent Pepper opened a whole new concept to making albums.The stones copied the Beatles ideas and even dressed mod like the Beatles. Rolling Stones are great but the Beatles still top them when it comes to popularity and their members doing pretty solo. The Stones haven't done so well as solo artist.As a group their still great and proved that last night just like Sir Paul and Billy Joel did.
Greg

Athens, Greece

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I like the Beatles more, they experimentated and created many different sounds. That's why the Stones imitated them;they couldn't follow their steps in creating something different than R&B. But, to that they were and still are, magnificent. The Stones as rockers are beyond comparison. However, when the Beatles wanted to, they could rock the place. Listen, Lennon-McCartney-Harrison were too many different candies in one box while the Stones had one flavour.
chris

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I already said I thought The Beatles were greater based on success. But, others have given very good reasons as well. Like the influence The Beatles had on the whole world, & that influence continues 42 years after they broke up. Also, the fact that all four Beatles were very talented. All of them could sing & write, & were accomplished musicians as well. Also, each member had a successful solo career, after the band split. And, the remaining members, Paul & Ringo are still rocking into their 70s.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Dec 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I can never figure out why people feel like they have to compare The Beatles to the Stones. Both were great British groups but we all know who came first and outsold the Stones in record sales even though the only stayed together for about 8 years.I like both groups but I did buy more Beatles albums than I did Rolling Stones.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Dec 16, 2012
 
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Not entirely. at first they were pop but by Rubber soul they no longer were just Pop and Sargent Pepper opened a whole new concept to making albums.The stones copied the Beatles ideas and even dressed mod like the Beatles. Rolling Stones are great but the Beatles still top them when it comes to popularity and their members doing pretty solo. The Stones haven't done so well as solo artist.As a group their still great and proved that last night just like Sir Paul and Billy Joel did.
The Beach Boys were still pop with "Smile" and "Pet Sounds"

Same with The Beatles "Rubber Soul" "Revolver" and "Sargent Pepper"

Only Brian Wilson did not have George Martin splicing things up.

Of course, you'll never admit to it but The Beach Boys were first.

The original "Smile" sessions were amazing in 1966.

Brian Wilson just gave it up to The Beatles.

The studio outtakes of "Rubber Soul" were great.

But the "Revolver" sessions were rough, man.

George Martin did a great job cleaning that one up for release.

The Rolling Stones peak was from 1968-1971.

Actually, I recently played "Tattoo You"

It still sounds great and "Gloom And Doom" would fit right in.

I was impressed by The Stones. Those guys still know how to rock.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Dec 17, 2012
 
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah the Beach Boys were before the Beatles and the Stones but this thread is about comparing both groups.I'm just glad to grow up with the Beach Boys,The Beatles,and the Stones.All 3 were great groups in their own way. The Rolling Stones have gotten uglier but yes they still can rock.
The Rolling Stones certainly surprised me most recently.

I am quite impressed by the new song, "Doom And Gloom"

Great video for it also.

Mick Jagger and the rest of the band sound inspired and they rock.

Frankly, I don't know how they managed to pull it off but they did.

My only complaint is that they should've done a brand new album.

Another greatest hits collection is pointless.

"Forty Licks" was not that long ago, really.

I've been checking out Rolling Stones recent live performances...

They sound as good as ever.

Charlie Watts is an amazing drummer.

He is always overlooked when talking about The Stones.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Dec 17, 2012
 
The Stones seem to have outlasted everyone...

They still sound great, even as old buggers.

Mick and Keith never want to give it up.

I'm truly impressed by the passion and the drive.

If only they would do a proper blues album.

I wasn't thrilled by "Stripped" a few years back.

They should do some new bluesy rock material.

I'd buy it.
The Dude Abides

Rochester, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Dec 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Keith and Mick killed Brian Jones a week after they kicked him out of the band he formed. They got him drunk/stoned and drowned him in his own pool.

I have thus abided
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Dec 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

octo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Rolling Stones certainly surprised me most recently.
I am quite impressed by the new song, "Doom And Gloom"
Great video for it also.
Mick Jagger and the rest of the band sound inspired and they rock.
Frankly, I don't know how they managed to pull it off but they did.
My only complaint is that they should've done a brand new album.
Another greatest hits collection is pointless.
"Forty Licks" was not that long ago, really.
I've been checking out Rolling Stones recent live performances...
They sound as good as ever.
Charlie Watts is an amazing drummer.
He is always overlooked when talking about The Stones.
I agree Charlie Watts isn't fancy but he is solid and a underrated drummer.Those old Stones just keep rockin and rollin.
Bubba

Bothell, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Dec 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

octo wrote:
The Stones seem to have outlasted everyone...
They still sound great, even as old buggers.
Mick and Keith never want to give it up.
I'm truly impressed by the passion and the drive.
If only they would do a proper blues album.
I wasn't thrilled by "Stripped" a few years back.
They should do some new bluesy rock material.
I'd buy it.
I agree they should go back to their roots and do some bluesy stuff. Mick can sing it and Kieth and Ron Wood are both really good guitar players. Ron Wood can play some great slide guitar.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 17, 2012
 
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>I agree they should go back to their roots and do some bluesy stuff. Mick can sing it and Kieth and Ron Wood are both really good guitar players. Ron Wood can play some great slide guitar.
I'd love to hear The Rolling Stones return to "Exile On Main Street"

They should stay away from trying for a modern rock sound.

Do something raw and bluesy with slide guitar.

In my opinion, they should do it before they lose the passion again.

They have an amazing back catalog of demos and unreleased blues.

It would certainly sell.

They proved to me that they still have what it takes.

It just annoys me that it is being wasted on another Greatest Hits.

F*ck the hits and do something raw and exciting.
Greg

Athens, Greece

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Dec 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Stones are so great, alright;however, if the Beatles had reunited and John and George were alive, the R.S. would have been upstaged by them, again. That's of course my sense. I can imagine what masterpieces John, Paul and George would have created, if they had been together once more. As far as the Beach Boys are concerned, beautiful melodies and great innovations as well. In fact, the B.B. are underrated compared to the Beatles and the Stones. Their influence on Pop music was too big.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Dec 17, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Greg wrote:
The Stones are so great, alright;however, if the Beatles had reunited and John and George were alive, the R.S. would have been upstaged by them, again. That's of course my sense. I can imagine what masterpieces John, Paul and George would have created, if they had been together once more. As far as the Beach Boys are concerned, beautiful melodies and great innovations as well. In fact, the B.B. are underrated compared to the Beatles and the Stones. Their influence on Pop music was too big.
I don't think it is a matter of upstaging anyone, really.

Musicians in the sixties were just very creative.

As for The Beach Boys, Brian lost control of the band.

Very unfortunate because "Pet Sounds" and "Smile" were brilliant.

They just continued to play it safe for am pop radio.

The Rolling Stones moved more towards a rock direction.

They kept playing live and just got better and better.

The Beatles got a lot of attention because they were The Beatles.

I like "The White Album" the best out of all their work.

The Doors were an amazing band also.

All of it was great because the sixties was all about change.

The music remains the most powerful of any other decade since.

For the most part, it is all about making the most money today.

Making music is not about art anymore.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 6
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

10 Users are viewing the The Beatles Forum right now

Search the The Beatles Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) 37 min RICK 12,745
The year after the Beatles met E 2 hr Little monster 128
Portraits of Beatles as Old Men Sun Yerushalimey 1
mel vs. bozo (Feb '10) Sat Looftess 6
Guitarist says McCartney hit 'crazy' high notes... Jul 19 Jimbo 1
Today in Rock: July 14 Jul 14 Will Dockery 1
Why do people hate Yoko Ono? (Sep '09) Jul 9 BeedleBug 281
•••
•••
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••