I have never liked the Beatles and am a lifelong Stones fan. I think in terms of innovation, the Beatles come out ahead. However, they produced new material for only 8 years, and only performed live for a few years, and so in terms of longevity and output, they are very much in the shade compared to the Stones.

Stones are my fav band ever. By far. But there is no doubt that the Beatles made the biggest "mark" on music. Almost every studio trick you can think of that was later used by most started with the Beatles. Them and Les Paul. Beatles seemed to have done everything before all others. Geniuses, those guys.

The Beatles - no doubt. They were far ahead in the studio trying out new things and a lot of bands has named the Beatles as a major influence - even today.

Still...

I am a Beatles fan but I've got to admit that they sometimes get credit for things they weren't the first ones to try. Not fair. The Beatles got the credit because they had the most listeners.

Let's face without the Beatles there might b e any Stones or anything else. They were IT. You always have to have someone that opens the door and then they have the rest who follow. I will say this, I will say this during 1969, the craziest year ever in the USA, who toured, was the Beatles, was it Dylan. No, it was the Stones and for that reason they will always be tops with me. Everyone else was talking a good game but the Stones did a little bit more than that. I am just glad to be around when they were both doing their things.

The Beatles....

before the Revolver both bands were just pop bands.

Eleanor Rigby...(if memory serves) was the first song by either of these (titan) bands that anyone in music (beyond Pop music) took seriously

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

But the Stones deserve credit for presenting the blues in a new way. It's true that the Beatles' 'Love Me Do' came out slightly before the Stones' blues-oriented music did, but they were working on it at the same time.

Easy one.
Beatles more impact in music. Stones in lifestyle and attitude.

[www.elijahwald.com]

- because I got no opinion apart from the fact that the made the bigger mark in my life

- today's music? What's that anyway?

Without a doubt The Rolling Stones defined AND upgraded the live experience. The 81 tour set the stage. Ha ha. 75/76 certainly brought a new level to the indoor spectacle.

The only other band to come close/equal the live experience as far as production values, stage design, sound, blah blah blah - is U2. Nobody else has come close. Well, I guess one could argue Pink Floyd. But on such a lesser scale in terms of how often? It's the Stones and U2 paving the way for how to do the big shows. It helps the Stones and U2 use the same people. But U2 got it from the Stones. However, U2 did do the B-stage first with ZOO TV, followed by the Stones with Voodoo Lounge.

And, as I've stated here before, the best was Bridges To Babylon. Nothing will ever top that one as far as the uniqueness of what they did - the bridge - to the B-stage. Much better than the Voodoo B-stage.

The Beatles - really George Martin - invented things in the studio that are still used today - only in a much simpler way. The Stones didn't really do that, they just took advantage of the capability and the ability to use extra tracks for more ambient sounds as well as a plethora of overdubs with whatever instruments. As far as 'working' and 'recording' a recording for a record (whatever - a song or album), I think the Stones get the nod - much more concerned with the actual sound. They took joy in abusing the medium on purpose (the mic for the guitar on Street Fighting Man for one) where The Beatles took joy in 'If we turn the knob all the way this way...' or for matching up different takes with the variations of tape speeds (which was, I think, Lucy In The Sky). As far as 'making' and 'producing' a record, The Beatles.

But it's almost like comparing apples so I dunno. It's all opinion anyway so whatever.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-01 03:01 by skipstone.

I love both bands. But it would be The Beatles. They started the British Invation that enabled groups like the Stones to become world wide phenomenas. They started the massive tours. And playing large venues like Shea Stadium. They started the trend of writing their own material, using the studio as an instrument and creative force. That wasn't just Martin, it was The Beatles with Martin. The Beatles were together for 8 years and created some of the most timeless music in Rock history.

Quote
skipstone

75/76 certainly brought a new level to the indoor spectacle.

Are you being facetious here? The lotus stage was cool and that giant weenie fab, but compared to the Zeppelin tour of 73, Ziggy Stardust, or Floyd's exploding gong and "Mr. Screen""? Or Peter Gabriel in those bizarre getups, or Freddie Mercury et al?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-01 20:09 by Zack.

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Musically - Beatles
Stylewise - Stones

Great one Elmo

__________________________

Stones rule. Full stop. But The Beatles have had more influence on music. Even the Stones would probably admit that.

The Stones would never have done 'A Hard Day's Night'. And no one would ever have called them the 'Fab Five' or the moptops.

I'd say it's about equal. Granted the Beatles changed the landscape in 64. Keith has even said they were the great door openers. The Stones on the other hand are recording pure blues.

One could make the argument that after John's we are bigger than Jesus Christ statement that without the Stones the Beatles were done for in the States. The Stones were considered dirtier. That happens before Revolver, which is the Beatles greatest LP IMHO.

The Beatles influence on pop can be heard in arrangements to this day. The Stones on Exile open the door to more of a country influence in rock n roll than had been heard since the rockabilly days of 56 and 57. That has never left the industry either.

By the Stones own admission image was more important in the early days than the music. ALO perfected the image making machine.

The Beatles play Shea Stadium first. The Stones made a stadium show sound good. Ask anyone who was at the Beatles Shea show what they heard.....crowd noise and an odd drum.

The image of a guitar player? Look how many guys and a few gals for that matter have done their level best to look like Keith.

I'm a fan of both bands. My kids' friends that are in their late teens and early 20's always like the Stones better. Especially Exile.

A Never ending story ...but some of us like it!

I like both The BEATLES and The STONES.
One couldn't never compare them.
They were both two f~@~@~great bands.

One thing to add, i've noticed that in the UK the BEATLES seems to be a little bit more popular.I could be wrong, but each time, i went to UK , that was the feeling i had...

HMN

The Beatles.

(What they did, they did in just 7 or 8 years)

It's that same all debate which reminds me the schoolyards. But may I say, none of them. Just listen to Bach. He overwhelms all parts of the Music. Stones are the brightest part of one of the branch.

STONES

Agreed. The Beatles. Simple as that.

Quote
NICOS

Quote
Elmo Lewis
Musically - Beatles
Stylewise - Stones

Great one Elmo

Maybe I should at something

Musically - Beatles - Popwise
Stylewise - Stones - Rockwise

__________________________

Door-openers or not, the Stones' incredible rendition of of Willie Dixon's 'Little Red Rooster' was a lot more radical than the bubblegum pop tunes the Beatles were churning out at the same time.

Quote
Bliss
Door-openers or not, the Stones' incredible rendition of of Willie Dixon's 'Little Red Rooster' was a lot more radical than the bubblegum pop tunes the Beatles were churning out at the same time.

That's a reason why a lot of us are still waiting on them to push a song that could rival with those Glory Days.

Not even close. The Stones!

>>That's a reason why a lot of us are still waiting on them to push a song that could rival with those Glory Days.

I know! And it would be so easy! An album of classic blues covers, with no horns, strings or back-up singers would return them to the level of prestige they deserve and once had.

Chuck Berry was more influential than either.

Quote
whitem8
I love both bands. But it would be The Beatles. They started the British Invation that enabled groups like the Stones to become world wide phenomenas. They started the massive tours. And playing large venues like Shea Stadium. They started the trend of writing their own material, using the studio as an instrument and creative force. That wasn't just Martin, it was The Beatles with Martin. The Beatles were together for 8 years and created some of the most timeless music in Rock history.

Good description. The Beatles made the whole thing - the British invasion that partucularly means the birth of the modern and 'real' rock - possible (Americans were totally ot of it, and it took the British to learn them the game), and The Stones made a move and big impact within this scheme. Th Beatles inspire the Stones (Mostly in their way of learning to write their own material; Lennon-McCartney->Jagger-Richard) as they did the whole scene, but the Stones were more 'stylistic' in their own specific manners and defined the blues 'bad boy' kind of attitude of the rock for the decedes to come. But it was still "the anti-Beatles" reputation that gave them a path of their own. No Beatles, No Stones. Not vice versa. But as "rock star" models, Mick and Keith are in a class of their own. No Beatle ever had a status like that. Those guys are the originals in that kind of genre. You know, sex and drugs and rock&roll... THAT IS: The Rolling Stones.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-10-02 00:42 by Doxa.

Quote
Steven
Chuck Berry was more influential than either.

If you want to go there - so was Elvis.

I like to think they both made a huge impact on Rock 'n' Roll. But the Stones are more interesting - let's face it.



When are we going to have this for the Stones?!

Great read so far - My take: Beatles opened the door and touched a wider audience - the Stones appeal is to those off to the left - more ulterior, darker, interesting.

I'm a Stones guy (that's why I'm here) - but respect that the Beatles occupy the space they do in pop culture that the Stones never could.

However ... If I look back to 69-73 (and I hate to admit this), the two most influetial bands of that era today are: Led Zeplin and Black Sabath. Back in those days I was not moved by either (really repulsed) - but looking across the full landscape - they set the stage for the volume level and in-your-face intensity of today's hard core music - not arguing that this is a good thing (or overlooking the influence of the Beatles or Stones), but in terms of overall culture, the louder - more over the top vibe that exists today was presaged by those two. One indication is the music that is in movies and commercials on TV - which is in some cases super-hard-core in relation to the Beatles and Stones vibes. Reactions??