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
81 - 100 of 104 Comments Last updated Mar 21, 2013

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#88 Dec 28, 2012
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP wrote:
<quoted text>
The album is SGT. Pepper's, not "sargent" at least get it right and have some respect. We can figure out you're a Beatles hater, so be it.
Dude, I don't hate The Beatles.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#89 Dec 28, 2012
Stuart Sutcliffe RIP wrote:
<quoted text>
Good Luck comparing studio recording and production of Elvis in the 50's to the Beatles in the 60's. Equipment had evolved so much in that time. Recording styles and ideas changed too. Technique and other stuff.
Tell us about recording experimentations and innovations Elvis did?
Also dont disparage the ability of George Martin to grasp an idea John, Paul or George had and how he would make it work due to his knowledge of recording and orchestration or sound effect.
Better yet, why dont you just go start an Elvis thread where you can blubber all you want.
BTW, I have a conversation between Elvis and Peter Noone of Herman's Hermits in Hawaii in 1966. They talk about The Rolling Stones. I can talk about Elvis if I want. The Rolling Stones did a great live soundboard recording of 'Hound Dog' in Memphis in 1978. I have the bootleg.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#92 Dec 29, 2012
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Wow Octo you have some really rare stuff. I've never heard the Stones sing Hound Dog. I think I saw Lennon sing it before but never Mick.I agree RCA had much better produced records than Parlaphone EMI or Capitol records.The Beatles used some funky recording studios in the beginning no wonder they wanted Abbey Road studios to be better.The Colonel was lucky to get Elvis on RCA they were superior in those days.Capitol were just money hungry quick produced records for quick sales in the early 60's.Ever wonder why the Stones weren't on Capitol?
Elvis produced his own music for RCA, good or bad. It was all about getting strong material to him, which was difficult. However, he did pick out some great songs and made them work. In some cases, Elvis took a slight song and elevated it by his performance. He was very good at it. Apples and Oranges. Hank Williams Sr wrote his own songs but it didn't mean that he was superior or a bigger legend than Elvis. RCA was a shitty record company but they did have excellent studios for Elvis to work with. It was what it was.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#93 Dec 29, 2012
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>Wow Octo you have some really rare stuff. I've never heard the Stones sing Hound Dog. I think I saw Lennon sing it before but never Mick.I agree RCA had much better produced records than Parlaphone EMI or Capitol records.The Beatles used some funky recording studios in the beginning no wonder they wanted Abbey Road studios to be better.The Colonel was lucky to get Elvis on RCA they were superior in those days.Capitol were just money hungry quick produced records for quick sales in the early 60's.Ever wonder why the Stones weren't on Capitol?
The Rolling Stones were in Memphis at the time. I think it was Keith who wanted to do 'Hound Dog' Actually, the soundboard was taken from different cities from The Stones 1978 tour. A mix of choice soundboards. Very good bootleg. I know that Capitol was a shitty label to record for but it was how they happened to release Beatle albums at the time. The English releases were longer and were how The Beatles wanted them. I'm not sure why US Capitol did that but it was probably to spread the albums out to get extra product out there. The Stones were more blues based and it wasn't until 1968 that The Stones started doing their most inspired work. They were great. "Begger's" had shown progress but went into a whole different direction than The Beatles. I like The Stones period from 1968-1972. They were on fire.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#95 Dec 30, 2012
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>The Stones had a more raw sound than the Beatles. I liked them best from 1964 to 1969. From 68-1972 they were on fire and selling albums very well even after changing guitar players twice.They still do ok for old ugly Brits with tons of attitude and rock rebellion. Lol
I was really impressed with The Who's performance in New York on 12-12-12. My brother in law's brother told me to check it out on You Tube because I missed it that night. I caught Billy Joel's performance and watched the rest of it from there. The Stones only did two songs, which was disappointing. I've read that some were saying that Rodger's voice was not strong but I have to disagree. Pete even did the windmill on his guitar. Granted, it was the two ex members of The Who with new musicians backing them but it worked. Ringo's son, Zak did an awesome job playing for The Who. The performance really surprised me. Rodger and Pete still have what it takes. The songs went down really well. I enjoyed seeing The Who more than anyone else on the bill and I was never really much of a Who fan.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#96 Dec 30, 2012
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text>The Stones had a more raw sound than the Beatles. I liked them best from 1964 to 1969. From 68-1972 they were on fire and selling albums very well even after changing guitar players twice.They still do ok for old ugly Brits with tons of attitude and rock rebellion. Lol
The Stones kind of lost focus of who they really were over the years but kept going behind what Mick Jagger wanted to take them. I wish that they would capture their bluesy era instead of the Disco crap and their modern rock updates in recent years. I've heard some great unreleased bluesy Stones from their peak era and wonder why they didn't work on the songs and release them. It is a crying shame.
art deuchars

UK

#97 Jan 4, 2013
The kinks

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#99 Jan 9, 2013
octo wrote:
<quoted text>
The Stones kind of lost focus of who they really were over the years but kept going behind what Mick Jagger wanted to take them. I wish that they would capture their bluesy era instead of the Disco crap and their modern rock updates in recent years. I've heard some great unreleased bluesy Stones from their peak era and wonder why they didn't work on the songs and release them. It is a crying shame.
Beggar's Banquet era!

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#100 Jan 9, 2013
art deuchars wrote:
The kinks
Someyimes I think Waterloo Sunset may be the most perfcet song ever written.
Bubba

Everett, WA

#101 Jan 9, 2013
Will Dockery wrote:
<quoted text>
Someyimes I think Waterloo Sunset may be the most perfcet song ever written.
The Kinks were underrated. Ray Davies is a great song writer. I like Rock and Roll fantasy and No gasoline and Low Budget great stuff from the Kinks.
JUMPINJACK

New Zealand

#102 Jan 11, 2013
STONES......by MILES!!!. STILL ROCKIN' AFTER 50 YEARS. Love their attitude and drive, they r THE GREATEST ROCK'N ROLL BAND IN THE WORLD!
lce

Morton Grove, IL

#103 Jan 12, 2013
Back to the original question....
It's kind on an unfair question. It's like asking which is better, filet mignon, or a great pizza? Certainly, the Stones have a vastly deeper library of songs as a band and have endured though 50 years!...but the Beatles changed the course of social and musical history in a mere 7 year span. What they did in seven years is unprecedented.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#105 Jan 13, 2013
Bubba wrote:
<quoted text> The Kinks were underrated. Ray Davies is a great song writer. I like Rock and Roll fantasy and No gasoline and Low Budget great stuff from the Kinks.
I'm exploring the country rock experiements of The Kinks now, "Schoolboys In Disgrace", "Muswell Hillbillies"... odd, but great stuff.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#106 Jan 13, 2013
Poppa Jivebones wrote:
<quoted text> Good point ICE. People come on here saying lame things like The Beatles were just a boy band like Jonas Brothers and other ignorant comparisons. Some say they were overrated well no band gets rated as much as the Beatles because they changed the course set trends and opened the door for a flock of bands to follow. Remember the Stones followed the Beatles and the Beatles gave them a Beatle wrote song to help them out.Yes Stones Rock and still able to just keep on trucking but the Beatles still out sell them in record sales and top all in British Band Popularity.
Agreed, good points.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#107 Jan 13, 2013
lce wrote:
Back to the original question....
It's kind on an unfair question. It's like asking which is better, filet mignon, or a great pizza? Certainly, the Stones have a vastly deeper library of songs as a band and have endured though 50 years!...but the Beatles changed the course of social and musical history in a mere 7 year span. What they did in seven years is unprecedented.
Spot on!
chris

United States

#110 Jan 13, 2013
Anybody know what happened to the Kinks? I agree that they are a very underrated band. But, I haven't heard anything from them since the 80s. Are they still together? Are they still touring or making new music?
Bubba

Seattle, WA

#111 Jan 14, 2013
chris wrote:
Anybody know what happened to the Kinks? I agree that they are a very underrated band. But, I haven't heard anything from them since the 80s. Are they still together? Are they still touring or making new music?
I am not sure if they still tour. A few years back they were supposed to play in Seattle but Ray Davies broke his foot or something and they cancelled. If they ever do come around I'd go see them because it would be a rare show. Bob Seger is going to do one more tour this year. I hear it will be his last.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#113 Feb 15, 2013
Poppa Jivebones wrote:
<quoted text>Those sound like more rare stuff from the Kinks. I liked their low budget album and I'm looking for their Greatest hits. I never got tired of Lola and You really got me.Well respected man.Even come dancing I tought had a real catchy beat to it.
Yes, this was a bit of an off-the-wall track for The Kinks, but really good stuff, think of kind of Creedence with Britih accents... and Ray Davies' unique perspective.

“Shadowville All-Stars”

Since: Dec 08

Columbus, GA

#114 Feb 15, 2013
chris wrote:
Anybody know what happened to the Kinks? I agree that they are a very underrated band. But, I haven't heard anything from them since the 80s. Are they still together? Are they still touring or making new music?
I saw recently that Ray Davies has a recent solo album, but I haven't heard it yet. Could be The Kinks are "on haitus" again... or at last, ended?
andy

Bristol, CT

#115 Mar 19, 2013
If you take away all the sappy love songs, the teenie bopper early songs, and any song ringo sings, the beatles are rock and roll band. The stones may have had a handful of sappy songs, but they stayed true to their blues roots on every album up to 1975s black and blue (when disco crept in). Another problem for me with the beatles, is paul mcartney. Of all my favorite beatles songs, 90% of them are either lennon or harrison songs. There aren't many stones songs that my grandmother would enjoy, but paul mcartney has dozens of cheesey easy listening type songs that he wrote with the beatles that lennon clearly had no part in writing. If we were to break down the stones catalog, compared to the beatles song for song, one could argue that up to 1970, they were neck and neck. This is the point where the stones blow by the beatles in number of great songs. The beatles owned the 1960s by a small margin. However, the stones owned the 70s, and the early 80s, when paul and john were writing moderatly respectable albums with their tallentless wives (would mick or keith EVER put their wives on an album?). The stones are rock and roll, the beatles are someone you bring home to your mother, and great music for children to listen to. "Star f***ker", "little t&a" vs "fool on the hill" & "im looking through you". Not even a contest. One is rock and roll. One is elevator music. You decide.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

The Beatles Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The year after the Beatles met E 9 hr Little monster 175
Revolver - 50 years with the Beatles 21 hr fathom out 1
Thanks to Taylor Swift's "Shake It Off," Super-... Aug 30 I HATE New Days 1
10 Facts You Probably Didn't Know About Michael... Aug 29 goodvibrations 1
Why do people hate Asparagus ? (Jan '10) Aug 29 Nave Spelled Back... 20
The Walrus Was Wrong; Paul is Alive and Well Aug 26 Kid_Tomorrow 2
150 Best Selling Artists in the World! (Dec '08) Aug 25 Octopus 12,754
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

The Beatles People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••