Beatles or Stones?

[W4 Shrimper]

Been listening to quite a lot of both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones of late. I feel both bands are rather good. But who's your favourite?

This poll is not about which band you feel were more important/influential, but which band had, in your opinion, the better songs.

 

[West Country Shrimper]

I prefer the Stones IMHO

 

[The Artful Shrimper]

I like the Stones because they were naughty, although I like Lennon's stuff.

 

[steveh1510]

Celine Dion.

 

[W4 Shrimper]

Quote[/b] (steveh1510 @ Dec. 06 2004,15:27)]Celine Dion.

It was with you in mind that I put that option

 

[Leeboy]

Stones.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Beatles... Lennon & McCartney will, in 200 years time, be seen as the Mozarts of their day.

Mick and crew won't, alas. That's not to say they're not an awesome band, who re-worked some Blues classics in an incredible way.

But the Beatles win it, for me, for their song-writing prowess...

Matt

 

[Ron Manager]

The Beatles, for all the reasons MtS has already stated (saved a fair bit of typing for me there Matt, thanks a lot!)

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Dec. 06 2004,16:03)]The Beatles, for all the reasons MtS has already stated (saved a fair bit of typing for me there Matt, thanks a lot!)

My pleasure, Ron!

Incidentally, someone got me the Zutons for my birthday, so I'm looking forward to listening to that...

Matt

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Matt the Shrimp @ Dec. 06 2004,16:05)]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Dec. 06 2004,16:03)]The Beatles, for all the reasons MtS has already stated (saved a fair bit of typing for me there Matt, thanks a lot!)

My pleasure, Ron!

Incidentally, someone got me the Zutons for my birthday, so I'm looking forward to listening to that...

Matt

Quirky, scouse-scally pop, it's a good album.

More on The Beatles vs Stones thing - the Fab Four came as close to changing the world as a group of working class lads from a Northern England industrialised city have any right to. In fact they came closer to changing the world than the vast majority of heads of state before and since, and all through music. I'm sure that Mick and co would agree that they couldn't have had anything like the career that they have had without John, Paul, George and Ringo leading the way - and that's the same for every other group of guitar playing young men and women who have come along since.

 

[Birri]

I like some stones records more than some beatles records and visa virsa

 

[Ron Manager]

Had a bit of a frenzy at the weekend adding to my music collection. I added the first five Rolling Stones albums and a box set of the early singles and b-sides to 1968 onto my iPod and have been enjoying the raw power of the band during that era. Absolutely amazing, I can only imagine how good a live band they were in those very early gigs (Mcnasty, over to you?).

Still, if I had to choose I'd go with the Fab Four but we were a very lucky country in the 60's to have both bands at full strength.

 

[McNasty]

Ron, never saw them in their early days ( or in Prague , you bugger! ) but have very many 45s and much prefer Stones for their early music ,albeit largely black American blues (not Shrimper) music. The Beatles were the nice boys who mummy would love their daughters to bring home ,the Stones were the great "unwashed" , rebels to the core.
My first album bought in 1965, at the age of 11 , was the Rolling Stones and it cost mum 13/4d.
F*ck I feel old.

 

[Napster]

The Beatles were start of the scally, twee, melodious pop genre which has seen more misses than hits.

 

[Ron Manager]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 14 2004,12:48)]The Beatles were start of the scally, twee, melodious pop genre which has seen more misses than hits.

Stop being indie-ist Naps, I am deeply offended by your hurtful jibes!

 

[MrB]

Quote[/b] (Ron Manager @ Dec. 06 2004,16:16)]More on The Beatles vs Stones thing - the Fab Four came as close to changing the world as a group of working class lads from a Northern England industrialised city have any right to. In fact they came closer to changing the world than the vast majority of heads of state before and since, and all through music. I'm sure that Mick and co would agree that they couldn't have had anything like the career that they have had without John, Paul, George and Ringo leading the way - and that's the same for every other group of guitar playing young men and women who have come along since.

Perhaps, though I still prefer to listen to the Stones which to me is what counts when it comes to which of them I prefer.

 

[Matt the Shrimp]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Dec. 14 2004,12:48)]The Beatles were start of the scally, twee, melodious pop genre which has seen more misses than hits.

Rubbish. That argument (scally aside) is destroyed with two words, which not only embody everything that is twee and powder-puff pop, but which also predates the Beatles by a good 6 years or so...




Cliff Richard

Ithankyou.

 

[Firestorm]

I prefer the Rutles.
I was the only one in Junior school who didn't like the Beatles, generally the early stuff was ok but Sgt Peppers onwards was just pretentious w**k (Imho)

The Who and The Kinks, but again keep it early and keep it raw.....