- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Which do you like better, Beatles or the Stones?
Posted on 1/11/15 at 1:09 am to johnnydrama
Posted on 1/11/15 at 1:09 am to johnnydrama
Stones for me. Gimme Shelter is one of my favorite songs.
0
Posted on 1/11/15 at 1:35 am to CrimsonFever
Been there, done that
Anyone interested in the topic should read this book:
Anyone interested in the topic should read this book:
quote:In the words of one insider who knew both bands in the early days: "The Beatles were thugs who wanted to become gentlemen, while the Stones were gentlemen who tried to act like thugs".
From Publishers Weekly:
An assistant professor of history at Georgia State University, McMillian has created what amounts to an extended compare-and-contrast essay by juxtaposing the careers of the two greatest rock & roll bands of the 20th century. He hopes to uncover whether these two bands were rivals or allies, and whether the Beatles were truly the good boys and the Stones were really the bad boys as each was respectively portrayed. McMillian builds a case for both sides of each argument, using existing interviews, an impressive bibliography, and some little-known sources. While the history of both bands is oft-covered territory, the author turns up some great nuggets, like the true origins of the Beatles' name; police information about one of the Stones' famous drug busts; and how Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote their first song together. In the end, McMillian has written an informative look at music's image machine—a powerful combination of media, marketing, and celebrity.
From Booklist:
It was the greatest rivalry in popular music: in one corner, the eclectic pop of the amiable Beatles; in the other, the raunchy blues-based rock of the sullen Rolling Stones. But the truth lies somewhere in between, as McMillian notes, since the Beatles were not as nice as they were supposed to be, nor were the Stones as thuggish as their reputation seemed to indicate. McMillian maintains that the gap between private reality and public facade was humongous. In this pleasurable romp through popular-music history, McMillian discusses what set the two groups apart and what brought them together. The rivalry between the two groups was real enough, but so was their mutual respect. And despite appearances to the contrary (Sgt. Pepper vs. Their Satanic Majesties Request, or “Revolution” vs. “Street Fighting Man”), their recording output wasn’t always tit for tat either. Eventually each band went its own way. The Beatles broke up while at the top of their game while the Stones continue to tour. Fans of both groups will enjoy this musical duel. --June Sawyers
Posted on 1/11/15 at 2:05 am to CrimsonFever
Spinal Tap
Posted on 1/11/15 at 2:34 am to Kafka
I didn't know it had been posted here, shoulda seaeched. Yeah it is an age old debate, was talking about who we liked better between a few friends today which gave me the idea to post it here.
Both bands are great, hard to imagine what music today would be like if not for the great classic songs they both made.
Both bands are great, hard to imagine what music today would be like if not for the great classic songs they both made.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 7:52 am to CrimsonFever
Stones (early) and not really close.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 9:21 am to CrimsonFever
Stones by light years, for me
Posted on 1/11/15 at 9:28 am to CrimsonFever
Beatles by the closest margin.
I have gone through periods that I listened to either band exclusively.
I have gone through periods that I listened to either band exclusively.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 10:17 am to Marciano1
quote:
Pink Floyd
naw man naw
Posted on 1/11/15 at 3:25 pm to CrimsonFever
The Beatles by a long shot.
The Stones are a great Rock Band though.
The Stones are a great Rock Band though.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 3:39 pm to CrimsonFever
Both are/were incredible, groundbreaking bands. I like them equally.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 4:04 pm to VOR
They are pretty close in my opinion, but I'd give a slight edge to the Beatles... That may have to do with the stones hanging around too long and kinda becoming a caricature of their former selves...
Posted on 1/11/15 at 4:26 pm to TFTC
They really don't have much in common musically, so it's really kind of a personal preference thing. I like them both and prefer one to the other depending on mood.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 4:49 pm to CrimsonFever
Stones
Posted on 1/11/15 at 4:52 pm to CrimsonFever
Which I like better changes according to my mood... but I'm 61 years old and lived through their simultaneous glory days. How awesome was it that we had both at the same time?
Posted on 1/11/15 at 5:26 pm to Geert Hammink_43
Stones, because The Beatles' music isn't actually any good.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 5:37 pm to SystemsGo
Tard alert
Posted on 1/11/15 at 7:00 pm to BigOrangeBri
Stones.
While I do think Brian Jones was a genius, I prefer the Mick Taylor era 69-74. That run of Let It Bleed, Ya-Yas, Sticky Fingers, Exile. and Goats Head is awesome. It's Only Rock & Roll album is ok but not as good as its predecessors (Time Waits For No One aside). If you haven't heard either the official release or boot of "Brussels Affair '73". do so. They were on fire during that European tour.
While I do think Brian Jones was a genius, I prefer the Mick Taylor era 69-74. That run of Let It Bleed, Ya-Yas, Sticky Fingers, Exile. and Goats Head is awesome. It's Only Rock & Roll album is ok but not as good as its predecessors (Time Waits For No One aside). If you haven't heard either the official release or boot of "Brussels Affair '73". do so. They were on fire during that European tour.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 7:44 pm to CrimsonFever
I've lost interest in the stones after the 4th reunion tour. Mick Jagger in leather pants and a baby gap T-shirt just ruined it for me.
Posted on 1/11/15 at 8:28 pm to CrimsonFever
Sgt. Pep
Exile on Maim St.
The white Album
Abbey Road
Exile on Maim St.
The white Album
Abbey Road
Posted on 1/11/15 at 9:43 pm to CrimsonFever
IMHO...
The Beatles were more influential and innovative. Seems like they laid the foundation for power pop- the genre of many of my favorite contemporary bands.
The Stones were just a bad arse dirty rock and roll band, more of a derivation of British blues rock which was not as ground breaking but they damned brought it.
I love both for different reasons
The Beatles were more influential and innovative. Seems like they laid the foundation for power pop- the genre of many of my favorite contemporary bands.
The Stones were just a bad arse dirty rock and roll band, more of a derivation of British blues rock which was not as ground breaking but they damned brought it.
I love both for different reasons
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News