Who's best: The Beatles (yes) or The Rolling Stones (no)?

Asked by: Che-Guerilla
  • The Beatles are God to Me, Even Though I Am Not Religious

    Have you heard Sgt. Pepper or Revolver, Rolling Stones voters? Because they are amazing. Nothing beats the Beatles. Nobody can. The Rolling Stones are just good. JUST GOOD. If there were no Beatles, they would be amazing, but the Beatles are better. So Rolling Stones lovers, listen to the Beatles!

  • The Beatles spoke to the World!

    The World listened! The Beatles jump-started the Stones career. Their first hit was a Beatles song - I wanna be your man. Jagger has always admitted that. The Beatles do Let it Be - The Stones do 'Let it Bleed' -
    not to mention The Beatles do 'All you need is Love' and The Stones follow with 'We Love You' - The Beatles lead - The Stones follow! If there was never The Beatles the Stones would have had to copy their real rival - The Kinks - because The Beatles really never had a rival!

  • The Beatles are better

    The Beatles started it. They can make any song that they wanted to. With Paul McCartney who already had a talent for memorable melodies it was possible. The Beatles songs just shows you how it was. The Beatles are just so much better and I don't know many people who appreciate how great they were and all the new bands just take it for credit

  • The Beatles are better

    I love both, but the Beatles are so much more diverse and more revolutionary. At their very best the Beatles could jam harder than the Stones (Yer Blues). In addition, the Beatles delved deep into the topics dealing with the mind and made profound conclusions. The Stones were just." sex and sex and sex and sex".

  • Stones were more musically talented

    Charlie is a much better drummer than Ringo. Bill was slightly better than Paul on the bass (and Darryl is better than both of them). All four guitarists in the Stones were better than the three guitarists in the Beatles (and Mick Taylor was better than almost anyone else alive at the time) and Mick Jagger is the greatest front man in rock and roll history.

  • I love both but the stones more

    I think both bands are talented, but the stones are better. The Rolling Stones sounded more like rock. I think bands like the doors, Boston, and Kansas were inspired more by the stones than the Beatles. Bands more popish like the moody blues or the cure were inspired by the Beatles. Also the Rolling Stones are still a band, and are still touring. Although both bands songs are mostly original, to me some of the Beatles songs don't quite sound original, and that they might have plagiarised a little or that riff or rythem. I'd have to go with the stones.

  • Both are great,

    But I'd have to go with the Stones. I do believe that the Beatles were more musically diverse and creative. However, the Stones had something that the Beatles didn't: they were darker, sleazier, and heavier. The Beatles, to me, always sounded a little too clean, even though some of their songs could get pretty heavy as well. The Stones symbolized the primal rebellion and energy that every great rock and roll band has. There's a reason why Aerosmith and GNR patterned themselves after these guys. This attitude is missing in today's music. Everyone's trying to innovate like the Beatles did. Anyone can be heard on the Internet. As a result, nothing stands out. What music needs now is that one group with defiance and power that grabs you by your heart and hits you in the soul.

    Posted by: bl3h

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.