NationStates Jolt Archive

I am of the opinion that the rolling stones are better, and cooler, and more worthy of recognition than the beatles. The beatles are good, but the stones are better. Every song of theirs has an underlying menace, and some are outright evil, like sympathy for the devil, in which they offer a sympathetic view of the devil. Also, the stones released at least four timeless classics, from beggar's banguet thru exile on main street. What do you think?

Much as I love the Stones, I have to go with the Beatles.

The Stones were influential in their own right, being one of the first hard rock bands (as well as one of the first big blues-rock bands). But the Beatles were even more important. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that without the Beatles, there might not have been a Rolling Stones. The Beatles' importance to rock music can't be overlooked. They basically revived a genre that grew stale, and almost died, after the deaths of Buddy Holly and Richie Valens. They were the first major self-contained rock group (that is, they wrote their own music, and they all played an instrument). Sure, the Stones were more "evil", but what difference does that make when it comes to talent? Both bands had a good songwriting team (the Beatles with Lennon/McCartney, the Stones with Jagger/Richards), but the Beatles had a third good songwriter, especially near the end: George Harrison. What Stones songs were written by Jones, Watts, or Wyman (and yes, I do know of Jones's overall importance to the band, in case anyone thought this statement was an indicator of ignorance there). I would agree that the Stones were superior instrumentally (with the exception of Jones/Taylor/Wood, who, although they're all damn good guitarists, I'm sorry, Harrison was better). The Beatles changed with the times. The Stones, while they did branch out a little bit (they played more variations on so-called "black music" than most white bands, and they did it well), but their overall sound stayed the same. I'm sorry, but while I love em both, the Beatles were just better and more important, at the end of the day. Not to mention that at least two of the Beatles (Lennon and Harrison) had better solo careers than any of the Stones (I'm basically ignoring McCartney's solo stuff, since I don't think it's all that good).

While I dislike the almsot 'religious' fanaticism of some Beatles fans, I'd still have to say I prefer the Beatles over the Stones. The Stones had a lot of great music, but they haven't really aged all that well, not to mention some really good music put out by the individual members of the Beatles.

dont like the rolling stones. they annoy me to the point of infinite annoyance.

The BEAT-ALLs, of course! theyre tied with Elvis for the most #1 songs in the world.

the stones are vastly superior rockers

the beatles are vastly superior in lyrics

the beatles had the good grace to break up before they became disgusting old sellouts with insurance companies sponsoring their tours.

The Beatles, hands down. Like John said, they were bigger than Jesus.

They both bore me. Sorry.

They both bore me. Sorry.
http://70.85.81.229/3630/189/emo/ditto.gif




I know of more Beatles 'hits' than Sones.
but i like the Stones more which is only 1 or 2 songs...

Uhh ...

Rolling Stones were (and are) energetic rebellious Rock and Roll. At least, as close to Rock and Roll as Brits can get. Sorry, chaps, but it's an American invention.

The Beatles, while amazing, were pop crap.

Rock > Pop

Well I liked Brian Jones.

Beatles were better and their music was and is way more important than that of the stones.

The beatles were far more experimental musically than the stones and influences far more musicians as a group and then as solo artists.

The stones were good as far as rockers go, definately, but even then I'd have to say Led zepplelin was more influential overall in the rock genre than the stones.

just my take

Uhh ...

Rolling Stones were (and are) energetic rebellious Rock and Roll. At least, as close to Rock and Roll as Brits can get. Sorry, chaps, but it's an American invention.

The Beatles, while amazing, were pop crap.

Rock > Pop

I like the rolling stones better. Just more energy and more rock.
The UK has some good rock. Like The Who, for example. They were one of the best rock bands (I think the best).
The Beatles are good, but theur songs jsut arent enegetic enough.....

The Rolling Stones. The Beatles only wish they could have written songs as magnificent as "Paint It Black" or "Mother's Little Helper".

Can't stand Paul McCartney though. And liked him least of all the Beatles, even at the time.

Impossible to compare the two. The Rolling Stones are an R&B band. The Beatles started as pop, but ended up transforming what we listened to (although Brian Wilson and, before he died, Brian Jones were also instrumental in that shift).

Well I liked Brian Jones.

*tee hee*

Uhh ...

Rolling Stones were (and are) energetic rebellious Rock and Roll. At least, as close to Rock and Roll as Brits can get. Sorry, chaps, but it's an American invention.

The Beatles, while amazing, were pop crap.

Rock > Pop

That entire post is hogwash.

1. The Rolling Stones, while able rockers, were confined mostly to pop songs, they rarely ventured away from established pop structures.

2. The Beatles were as rebellious in both the music world and social life as any band has ever been.

3. Brit rock has generally trumped American rock for the most part. Especially when one considers the amount of money spent to produce it.

4. The best rock songs generally fall square in to a pop sub-genre.

3. Brit rock has generally trumped American rock for the most part.

HA!

I'd put Jane's Addiction up against Oasis any day. America does now and always shall own Rock. The Brits may have Ozzie and The Who, but we have Metallica and The Ramones.

Everything, and I mean everything, that came out of England - whether the original British Invasion or the New Wave thereof - is derivative of something uniquely American.

HA!

I'd put Jane's Addiction up against Oasis any day. America does now and always shall own Rock. The Brits may have Ozzie and The Who, but we have Metallica and The Ramones.

Everything, and I mean everything, that came out of England - whether the original British Invasion or the New Wave thereof - is derivative of something uniquely American.
I think that there's a misconception about where the best rock and roll music comes from. Most people would say Britain because the three biggest bands were british-the beatles, the stones, and led zeppelin. However, America has a lot of bands that are semi-famous, and just as good as those mentioned above. I"m talking about the meat puppets, fugazi, minor threat, black flag, the dead kennedys, to name a few.

Rolling Stones were (and are) energetic rebellious Rock and Roll. At least, as close to Rock and Roll as Brits can get.

No way. Do you even remember the Sex Pistols? They were pure Rock 'n' Roll in every sense of the word.

Everything, and I mean everything, that came out of England - whether the original British Invasion or the New Wave thereof - is derivative of something uniquely American.
I disagree. What do you suppose, people in the UK had to pluck rubber bands and tap their feet rhythmically for entertainment before Elvis Presley started making records? There's just stuff people does. Claiming one group or another is 'derivative' doesn't cut it - you could just as easily claim American Rock 'n' Roll is derivative.

Let's just say they're related, but pick up on and follow different cues on the basis of their own cultures. And then be done with it.

I disagree. What do you suppose, people in the UK had to pluck rubber bands and tap their feet rhythmically for entertainment before Elvis Presley started making records? There's just stuff people does. Claiming one group or another is 'derivative' doesn't cut it - you could just as easily claim American Rock 'n' Roll is derivative.

Let's just say they're related, but pick up on and follow different cues on the basis of their own cultures. And then be done with it.

Saying Elvis Presley was the beginning of Rock 'n' Roll makes me laugh.

Saying Elvis Presley was the beginning of Rock 'n' Roll makes me laugh.
Yeah, well I had to pluck something out of the air to add to this exercise in pre-coffee, Sunday-morning-hunt-&-peck typing. I probably should have done a bit more research, or stuck with my first instinct and mentioned Carl Perkins or Jerry Lee Lewis, but meh.

Smacks of effort.

Yeah, well I had to pluck something out of the air to add to this exercise in pre-coffee, Sunday-morning-hunt-&-peck typing. I probably should have done a bit more research, or stuck with my first instinct and mentioned Carl Perkins or Jerry Lee Lewis, but meh.


Elvis contemporaries. You should have mentioned Chuck Berry, Big Mama Thornton, and Robert Johnson.

As for what they were doing in England before Black Americans invented Blues/Rock, from extensive study in music history, they were doing what Americans were doing at the time: Big Band Swing (also American, derived from Jazz).

Elvis contemporaries. You should have mentioned Chuck Berry, Big Mama Thornton, and Robert Johnson.

As for what they were doing in England before Black Americans invented Blues/Rock, from extensive study in music history, they were doing what Americans were doing at the time: Big Band Swing (also American, derived from Jazz).

Should've, could've, didn't. Meh.

There's no conclusive evidence that Blues music had it's origins with any one ethnic group, btw. That's a tidy bit of cultural revisionism.

HA!

I'd put Jane's Addiction up against Oasis any day. America does now and always shall own Rock. The Brits may have Ozzie and The Who, but we have Metallica and The Ramones.

Sure, if you bring up the most notorious assholes to ever come out of England's music scene, British rock doesn't look that good.

Everything, and I mean everything, that came out of England - whether the original British Invasion or the New Wave thereof - is derivative of something uniquely American.

That is mostly true, the British Invasion was mostly garage rock that was mainly three mediocre musicians playing American R&B and blues.

But that doesn't give America a copyright on rock and roll.

Elvis contemporaries. You should have mentioned Chuck Berry, Big Mama Thornton, and Robert Johnson.

As for what they were doing in England before Black Americans invented Blues/Rock, from extensive study in music history, they were doing what Americans were doing at the time: Big Band Swing (also American, derived from Jazz).

Elvis is as big of a rock originator as there is, as with his contemporaries. They were the ones who took the R&B of guys like Fats Domino and Bo Diddley and gave them their first semblance of rock songs.

The Stones, definitely.

The Beatles were a bunch of pseudo-intellectual pretentious punks who did not understand the meaning of the word "music".

Now, please excuse me while I kneel before my shrine to Mark David Chapman.

The answer you're after is The Who.