The Beatles or the Stones? A scientific pole. (1 Viewer)

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? A scientific pole.

  • The Beatles

    Votes: 57 61.3%

  • The Rolling Stones

    Votes: 19 20.4%

  • Taco- Puttin' on the Ritz

    Votes: 17 18.3%
  • Total voters
    93
Previous Next
BigSlick said:
I've listened to The Beatles so much that I don't even need to play the albums any more, you know? I'm the same way with RUSH and probably indigo girls as well. There are a few Stones albums like Sticky Fingers, Exile, and Aftermath that I've listened to quite a bit, although I've probably still listened to the Kinks or The WHO more than the Stones. Oh, Led Zeppelin I've probably listened to some of the albums enough to have 'em memorized as well. Oh crap, a bunch of alternative rock and indie rock from the 90s probably too, now that I think about it. And jazz and musicals and stuff. Well, hell. I guess there's a ton of stuff in the jukebox by this point.

One of my waking fantasies revolves around a counter/tally/odometer like thing that we'll have access to in Heaven. You could find out how many cigarettes you've smoked, how many times you've watched Karate Kid/Coming to America/Shawshank, etc., and what your all time play counts are by album. Also, stuff like how long you've spent at red lights and all that sort of thing.
Click to expand...
one of my favorite students from HS (pain in the butt but super talented and that seems to be my favorite type of student for some reason :rolleyes:) has a band that opened for Indigo Girls in NYC
Daisy the Great is the band's name
 
Mr. Blue Sky said:
Oh god.. i feel like we’ve been though this debate on this board more often than aging rock stars have fallen ill and cancelled on Jazzfest.

The answer is The Beatles, and it isn’t close.

That said, there are a few Stones songs that i really like, as much as almost anything the Beatles ever wrote and recorded.. But the BODY of work the Beatles put out is incomparable, all over the map, from bubble gum pop (but good bubble gum pop) to psychedelic experimental music, and everything in between.. The amount of output they had for only really being together in the public consciousness for SIX years is astounding.. the Beatles are to music what the current guy dominating on Jeopardy is to the dozens of other contestants that have gone against him.. sure, they get a question right every once in a while, but it’s still like men vs boys out there.
Click to expand...
?these are the answers
Beatles win both in term of depth and breadth
i will cede that performance-wise, Stones would win, but that's like saying Van Halen is better than Rush b/c David Lee Roth - which is just silly
 
superchuck500 said:
Oh, here comes the "I like to say that things with incontrovertible merit suck" guy.

Yawn.
Click to expand...


Oh, here comes because I think something has incontrovertible merit, it must have incontrovertible merit guy.

Yawn.

I mean, I like about two Rollings Stones songs, Paint it Black and Sympathy for the Devil. I find most of the rest to be bad pop songs. As for the Beatles, they were no doubt innovative, but I don't find most of their music entertaining at all and they were in the end really just a pop band. Lennon was much better on his own. So, while I can't say that either of them suck, I do agree that the worship that both seem to get is out of all proportion with how good each really was.

But, of course, musical taste is very subjective so to some they both may suck and to some they both may be incredible.
 
It's an interesting comparison. They both first hit mainstream success in the mid-60's, and if you compare the music put out around the same time head to head I'd favor the Beatles. But the Beatles broke up in '69, and that was right around the time the Stones started putting out their best stuff -- Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Mainstreet. Those albums are as good or better than anything the Beatles put out. But the Stones also have put out a ton of mostly forgettable stuff since. So perhaps the Beatles get the overall edge because they quit when they were on top, and we don't have to include the crap McCartney put out with Wings among their catalog .
 
sonicboom said:
The Beatles have so many catchy tunes, such as....

Click to expand...





.



Video isn’t playing for me, but that song Obladi, Oblada is a perfect example of the depth and variety of the Beatles catalogue... If someone were to say, “Quick, list 30 Beatles songs!”- i’m not sure i’d even think of that one in the top 20 or 25– but it’s a GREAT freaking song... The Stones just cant boast that sort of depth, at all... Then again, neither can any other band in the history of music.
 
St. Widge said:
Oh, here comes because I think something has incontrovertible merit, it must have incontrovertible merit guy.

Yawn.

I mean, I like about two Rollings Stones songs, Paint it Black and Sympathy for the Devil. I find most of the rest to be bad pop songs. As for the Beatles, they were no doubt innovative, but I don't find most of their music entertaining at all and they were in the end really just a pop band. Lennon was much better on his own. So, while I can't say that either of them suck, I do agree that the worship that both seem to get is out of all proportion with how good each really was.

But, of course, musical taste is very subjective so to some they both may suck and to some they both may be incredible.
Click to expand...
how is "just a pop band" a slight when we're discussing pop bands? (unless you're trying to distinguish between pop and rock??)
so what pop bands would you say are better and why?
 
guidomerkinsrules said:
how is "just a pop band" a slight when we're discussing pop bands? (unless you're trying to distinguish between pop and rock??)
so what pop bands would you say are better and why?
Click to expand...

I consider a "pop" band to be a band that is primarily making music for the purpose of making money or making music that they think will be popular. Of course, all bands do that to some extent, but some do it more than others. And there are, of course, grey areas like pop rock, pop punk, pop country, etc.

So, I tend to think that most of the stuff the Beatles did was more or less pop music without a huge amount of meaning behind them. They were catchy songs and they were a bunch of good looking guys which is how their career got started. Admittedly they did more serious stuff later on, but I never considered anything they did to be particularly deep or though provoking. Of course, I'm sure some will disagree.

As far as who is a better pop band than the Beatles? Probably nobody. The only thing that comes close is Michael Jackson and he's a solo, not a band. And the Beatles are clearly better since they wrote all their own songs and played their own instruments. (BTW, I also really dislike Michael Jackson's work.) Still, there is merit to being the best pop band or pop solo performer out there. It's just not something I care to listen to. And fans of the Beatles and Jackson both seem to assume that everyone must like the Beatles and Michael Jackson or there is something wrong with them. I mean, I'm a huge fan of The Clash and I think they are better than the Beatles, Stones, or Michael Jackson. I think The Clash are the perfect example of a band that always had a deeper meaning in their music but also somehow became very popular. But I get that a lot of people don't really like them and don't feel it's necessary to assume they have incontrovertable merit to everyone.
 
Stones are unmitigated trash. Beatles are a perfectly fine pop rock band that's reputation has been fueled by cult like delusions of grandeur for almost 50 years. So the Beatles win, but John Lennon was a total dipshirt and anyone who takes his middle school philosophy prattling seriously is embarassing.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom