• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

The Beatles Or The Rolling Stones?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ford Prefect said:
Hey, don't forget John Cale. There's a reason the first two VU albums are infinitely superior to the last two.*

*Disagreement is not a valid option when it comes to this matter.
Click to expand...


Yeah, my bad. Cale has been involved in producing a lot of stuff for artists I like, too, so that's cool.

I've only listened to:

The Velvet Underground & Nico
White Light, White Heat
The Velvet Underground
Loaded
V.U.

Are any of those what you're referring to in the last two part, or have I just not listened to them?
 
Nihilism said:
Yeah, my bad. Cale has been involved in producing a lot of stuff for artists I like, too, so that's cool.

I've only listened to:

The Velvet Underground & Nico
White Light, White Heat
The Velvet Underground
Loaded
V.U.

Are any of those what you're referring to in the last two part, or have I just not listened to them?
Click to expand...
The first four are the band's official studio albums in correct order. V.U. is a compilation of outtakes not featured on said albums, and I'm not sure to what extent Cale is featured outside of Stephanie Says, on which he plays the gorgeous viola part.

And don't get me wrong, the self-titled album and Loaded are both great, but they're not nearly as important or groundbreaking without Cale's noise and drone experimentation, IMO.
 
Queen > Black Sabbath > Led Zeppelin > The Beatles > Whatever else.

Yes I included Black Sabbath, so what? I don't listen to The Rolling Stones so I can't judge.
 
Lifeonmars? said:
For those who are saying The Beach Boys are better, have you even listened to Smiley Smile? It's the sound of a band (well, namely Brian Wilson) that's absolutely given up. Not to say it's a bad album, but at least The Beatles held it together.

I guess you can go off from Surf's Up or Sunflower, but I can't say I'm a big fan of either.
Click to expand...

I can make an album from the stuff they wrote in late 69/70 (the sessions for Sunflower, basically) that smokes anything the Beatles ever did.
 
JodyAnthony said:
stones, then the monkees, then the beatles
Click to expand...
Duuuude. That's just ice cold.

While not well versed in the Stones I think Sticky Fingers is absolutely golden and reaches the highs of any Beatles albums. That said, the Beatles were pretty fucking consistent and didn't have a shit album between A Hard Day's Night and the White album. Oh yeah, I'm not a huge fan of Abbey Road.

Also I'm with Lifeonmars - the Kinks had a four album stretch where they were the equals of The Beatles, Stones and the Who. Something Else - Village Green Preservation Society - Arthur - Muswell Hillbillies are just phenomenal albums. Arthur in particular - listening to it and you can't escape that Billie Joe Armstrong cribbed nearly all of American Idiot from Ray Davies.
 
Old thread. Weird.

Anyway, the correct answer is The Beatles. I've never cared for the Stones all that much, and The Beatles are my favorite band. Pretty easy answer.

Also, why are people bashing the Beach Boys in this thread? I don't think that they're as GOOD as the Beatles, personally, but they're still quite amazing.
 
Snowman Prophet of Doom said:
Also, why are people bashing the Beach Boys in this thread? I don't think that they're as GOOD as the Beatles, personally, but they're still quite amazing.
Click to expand...
Bias to their surf band phase, backlash to the greatness of Pet Sounds and ignorance to their late 60s, early 70s output. Also, Smile was the first Duke Nukem Forever, which eventually took 40 years to complete.
 
The Beatles were way more consistent than the Stones. When I think of the Stones, I think of about 10 or 12 good songs I like over the span of their whole career...when I think of the Beatles, it's like 5 albums. So the answer is easy for me.
 
The Beatles, The Who, The Kinks, The Rolling Stones, The Creation.

The one thing I can't decide on is whether I like Bowie more than T-Rex, they are both so damn good. :D
 
I never understood the Beatles vs Stones debate, really. I don't know all that much about the Stones, but the Beatles changed the way everything was done in pop music. They were the first to introduce strings among tons of other weird instruments into pop music, they revolutionized tons of studio techniques, proved pop songs could still be meaningful, among tons and tons of other things.

Again, I don't know much about the Stones, and I certainly don't hate them, either. Just not as good as the one and only Beatles.
 
RiggenBlaque said:
I never understood the Beatles vs Stones debate, really. I don't know all that much about the Stones, but the Beatles changed the way everything was done in pop music. They were the first to introduce strings among tons of other weird instruments into pop music, they revolutionized tons of studio techniques, proved pop songs could still be meaningful, among tons and tons of other things.

Again, I don't know much about the Stones, and I certainly don't hate them, either. Just not as good as the one and only Beatles.
Click to expand...

The Stones did other things though. They were arguably the first "rock and roll band," the first guys to have a really sinister edge and vibe. They were just as diverse as the Beatles (people seem to often forget that though).

And no one has the swagger that Mick and Keith had. Mick is easily the greatest frontman of all time.

Musically, they are par for par.
 
Man, I know for some people it's an easy choice one way or the other but I'm really conflicted here.

I love Exile on Main Street. I looove the cocky, blues inspired rock of The Rolling Stones.


But...


I also love the pop bliss of Rubber Soul. The cheeky experimentation of Sgt pepper's. The intoxicating guitar riff on "I've got a feeling"

Man, so hard to decide.

But, this thread isn't about being wishy washy. It's about making a choice.


I choose The Beatles. by a hair.
 
I'm surprised I haven't posted in this thread yet. I would have to say Beatles but I always find it hard to vote against the Stones from '68 to '72.

Seriously, Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street? It's a good thing the Beatles contemporaneously released The Beatles, Hey Jude/Revolution, Get Back and Abbey Road or else I'd have to give it to the Stones.

In fact, 1969 was such a great year for both that I would call it a tie for that year alone-- both Honky Tonk Women and Get Back reached #1 in the summer and Let It Bleed and Abbey Road went back and forth at the top of album charts for months in the fall.
 
Beatles > Beach Boys > Velvet Underground > The Who > Elvis Costello > The Clash > Stones > Zeppelin

Stones are fucking outstanding, but.... there's better.
 
Beatles by a really small unit of measurement. More cohesive albums and a much larger influence overall.

But I love the Stones, I'm listening to Some Girls right now, which ranks up there with the brilliant 68-72 material

Lucario: Beatles > Stones > The Clash > Beach Boys > Velvet Underground > Zeppelin > The Who > Elvis Costello, imo obviously
 
Anytime I think of the Stones being more influential than the Beatles, I think of that one album they had that was basically their attempt at Sgt Pepper. It had a really similar cover and all the songs were psychedelic, but I can't remember the name of it. I don't know the circumstances surrounding that album, but it could probably be argued it was a sort of tribute to the Beatles, but in my mind that sounds really lame to just follow in their footsteps.

Also, The Beatles and the Beach Boys were always kindof in competition back and forth with the BB releasing Pet Sounds and the Beatles Sgt Pepper, with the Stones never really getting involved in that.

Another thing that comes to mind is how badly the Stones performed in their own film that they made, the Rock & Roll Circus, that they purposely blocked the release of the film for decades because they were totally shown up by The Who, who basically did one song and totally fucked everything up and did an amazing job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKlr5qeiQY

Admittedly, the only Stones album I've ever listened to in it's entirety is Sticky Fingers, which I didn't enjoy.
 
RiggenBlaque said:
Anytime I think of the Stones being more influential than the Beatles, I think of that one album they had that was basically their attempt at Sgt Pepper. It had a really similar cover and all the songs were psychedelic, but I can't remember the name of it. I don't know the circumstances surrounding that album, but it could probably be argued it was a sort of tribute to the Beatles, but in my mind that sounds really lame to just follow in their footsteps.

Also, The Beatles and the Beach Boys were always kindof in competition back and forth with the BB releasing Pet Sounds and the Beatles Sgt Pepper, with the Stones never really getting involved in that.

Another thing that comes to mind is how badly the Stones performed in their own film that they made, the Rock & Roll Circus, that they purposely blocked the release of the film for decades because they were totally shown up by The Who, who basically did one song and totally fucked everything up and did an amazing job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKlr5qeiQY

Admittedly, the only Stones album I've ever listened to in it's entirety is Sticky Fingers, which I didn't enjoy.
Click to expand...

Okay, you're a bit off.

The album you're referring to is Satanic Majesties. And while the cover is similar, the music couldn't be more different. That album goes off the psychedelic edge, and in fact, has a very Pink Floyd sound, before PF themselves developed it (PF's debut doesn't really represent the rest of their catalog).

And the Circus thing, IIRC is mostly correct. They weren't really embarrassed how well the Who did, they were embarrassed how stoned and high and how bad their performance was. It was not a typical Stones show.

And that version of The Who's A Quick One is the by far the best recorded live version, and much more preferable than the studio one.
 
RiggenBlaque said:
Anytime I think of the Stones being more influential than the Beatles, I think of that one album they had that was basically their attempt at Sgt Pepper. It had a really similar cover and all the songs were psychedelic, but I can't remember the name of it. I don't know the circumstances surrounding that album, but it could probably be argued it was a sort of tribute to the Beatles, but in my mind that sounds really lame to just follow in their footsteps.

Also, The Beatles and the Beach Boys were always kindof in competition back and forth with the BB releasing Pet Sounds and the Beatles Sgt Pepper, with the Stones never really getting involved in that.

Another thing that comes to mind is how badly the Stones performed in their own film that they made, the Rock & Roll Circus, that they purposely blocked the release of the film for decades because they were totally shown up by The Who, who basically did one song and totally fucked everything up and did an amazing job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bCKlr5qeiQY

Admittedly, the only Stones album I've ever listened to in it's entirety is Sticky Fingers, which I didn't enjoy.
Click to expand...

the Stones are typically much better live performers than what is shown on that video.

And it's hard to really qualify The Stones without listening to, say, between the Buttons, Let it Bleed, Exile on main Street, etc.

they had some great albums.
 
Suburban Cowboy said:
also willing to accept Aerosmith
Click to expand...

Eww, gross.

It's pointless OP because you're comparing a pop band to a hard rock band, but if I chose one I'd go Stones. I do agree that The Beatles generally made more cohesive, strong albums, however if I had to choose one band that is insanely overrated, it'd be the Beets. Sure they're an awesome band, but it's time to move on. They didn't solve world hunger, quit worshipping them.
 
I think maybe I avoid the Stones because they play their songs on the radio constantly so like any other band I hear on the radio on an extremely frequent basis (Nirvana is a good example, among others), I have a sort of mental block from liking them. They play a lot of Beatles too, but not as much as the Stones since a lot less of the Beatles catalog were good stand-alone singles. Also, the Beatles songs they play on the radio a ton I dislike now because I've heard them so often (Come Together, Getting Better, most of the early 4 albums).
 
Ford Prefect said:
Hey, don't forget John Cale. There's a reason the first two VU albums are infinitely superior to the last two.*

*Disagreement is not a valid option when it comes to this matter.
Click to expand...
I think you forgot about The Velvet Underground s/t.

He has produced some good albums, with Nico, Stooges, Modern Lovers, and Nick Drake.
 
It goes The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and The Who. Any order of the three is perfectly acceptable although I have the Beatles at number 1 in my book.
 
Vox-Pop said:
I think you forgot about The Velvet Underground s/t.

He has produced some good albums, with Nico, Stooges, Modern Lovers, and Nick Drake.
Click to expand...

My godfather was the drummer in the Modern Lovers. I'm also a huge Lou Reed/Velvet Underground fan.
 
ElvisPresley.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

First images released of the actors playing The Beatles in Sam Mendes' four part biopic
33
450
AJUMP23 replied
RTTP: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone
7
242
jason10mm replied
Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone | Official Teaser | HBO Max
3 4 5 6 7
334
2K
DeafTourette replied
Mellon Collie, the Infinite Sadness, and the state of rock and roll 30 years later.
48
1K
deathsaber replied
Which band or artist has the longest length of time between great songs?
19
398
Trogdor1123 replied
Top Bottom