For years I've always said that the Stones were my favorite band, but that the Beatles had to be ranked as the #1 rock group of all-time due to their early contributions to the art form and culture in general...but...

40 plus years as an incredible live act, combined with their recorded output during the Beatles time...plus the albums that have followed, especially ABB at this late date...all believe me to say that any rock historian worth his salt a thousand years from now will have to rank the Stones as the quintessential rock group of all-time...numero uno...number one.

Very close in the early years (62-70)...later, far better when all the Beatles were alive, recording, and playing live (71-80)...and then another 25 years of great tours and many brilliant songs.

I know many here may not like the Beatles much in the first place or that some think Macca is still better in some ways, but just wanted to know if anyone else has had a similar revelation in the near past.

I'm with Jagger on his "diplomatic" answer. They're totally different. Same era, but very different. The Beatles were pop. I dont consider them rocknroll really. Very experimental and cool once they got past the pop, but the Stones have always been rocknroll from the very beginning. I've always viewed the Stones as #1.

Stones #1 RnR band all time in my eyes. James & my Fav band too.

>40 plus years as an incredible live act, combined with their recorded output during the Beatles time...plus the albums that have followed, especially ABB at this late date...all believe me to say that any rock historian worth his salt a thousand years from now will have to rank the Stones as the quintessential rock group of all-time...numero uno...number one.

Exactly. Beatles Schmeatles.

Love John, Paul, George,and even Ringo, but they can't hold a candle to what this bunch has done.

No one can,

The Romans had a phrase . . .

sui generis.

(word of the Day for Thursday June 14, 2001 on dictionary.com)

there's not a contest, by the way

4 TYLIX,

Thanks for getting this going.

I 100% agree...

All you STONES fans who are more Beatles fans AREN'T GOING TO LIKE THIS BUT THIS IS THE TRUTH!

THE STONES BLOW AWAY THE BEATLES AS THE BEST ROCK AND ROLL BAND OF ALL TIME!

1. The Beatles were the New Kids On The Block of the early 60's...face it...clean cut lads playing it up for the pre-teens...The Stones didn't care about the teenee boppers...they wanted to bring Rock and Roll to the UK...captured everything about R&R...The Beatles sang "I wanna Hold Your Hand" the Stones sang Let's Spend THe Night Together or Have You Seen Your Mother Baby.
and all those Blues songs from the States.

2. The last official Beatles gig was in 1965 only 3 years after they officially started...they never got to play on stage thru a Sound Board in their entire history...they plugged in amps (same as Stones during that era) and no one heard them...The Beatles never new what it's like to be on the road with 18 wheelers full of Sound & Lights and all the bullshit you have to deal with...if they couldn't get on together to make more records...how on earth could they shlep suitcases, Trucks, Planes, 250+ crew around the globe from hotel to hotel and country to country with Yoko in toe..never would have happened...they couldn't survive the road.

3. The Beatles were recording artists...The Stones are recording artists and a band.

4. The Beatles are never played in Jukeboxes...The Stones always are.

5. The Stones are never played in corporate building Elevators and Dentist offices...The Beatles always are..

6. Good cover bands never play Beatles if they want to get laid...great cover bands know it's a must to play Stones.

7. Paul is so full of himself and pretends to be down to earth...Jagger is full of himself and doesn't give a shit what you think.

8. All You Need Is Love or Honky Tony Woman?

9. Have you ever had the urge to make love, have sex to Sgt Peppers?????

10. If The Beatles played their best 5 in concert I would fall asleep or take a long piss...YESTERDAY, LONG AND WINDING ROAD, LET IT BE, HEY JUDE, and ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE???? vs a STONES Concert w/ Jumping Jack Flash, Brown Sugar, Satisfaction, Honky Tonk Woman, and whatever you want to throw for #5...there is no comparison.

Beatles are RECORDING ARTISTS...ROLLING STONES...BEST BAND ON THE PLANET OF ALL TIME!!!!

PECMAN

Forgot to say...

Respect to the Beatles and their influence...no doubt...

But if we are talking band...STONES STONES STONES STONES!!!!

PECMAN

I think the Stones are by far #1 since 1968. The year of Beggars Banguet and JJF..

After 43 years they are still the most popular live act in the world! What else can you say??

Pecman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

ROLLING
> STONES...BEST BAND ON THE PLANET OF ALL TIME!!!!


It's just as simple as that!



"got to be worked on
don't have no bark nor bite..."

I like the development of this thread, it´s like a toilet wall.
Yeah ROLLING STONES FOREVER!!!

I like both bands, but I defiantly prefer the Rolling Stones. However, those who slam the Beatles for not being rock 'n roll enough should take a look at how things started and the two bands very different backgrounds.

The Beatles were working-class northerners, who finally got their break after performing in seedy and grubby bars and clubs in Hamburg. Before Epstein got his paws on them, they were leather clad rock 'n rollers to the core. Lennon always despised the way Epstein got them to wear matching uniforms.


The Rolling Stones are from southern England, where there is less poverty and ultimately, I'd say that things are easier. Mick Jagger and Brian Jones were both defiantly middle-class and where as Keith, Bill and Charlie were probably working class, I'd still say they their path to success was easier. Did the Stones pay in Hamburg in front of scum and drunken sailors? No, I'd say they had it pretty easy performing at Eel Pie Island and The Marquee. The Rolling Stones may not of adorned uniforms (though they did try in late '63), but they were no more rock 'n roll than the Beatles. No, not at all.

very good points, Al.

'Have you ever had the urge to make love, have sex to Sgt Peppers????'..... you ever tried shagging to Satanic Majesties request??????

lets not underestimate the Beatles for christ sake...... both great bands and thats it!

I really don't think that, at this point, anything can shake up the unbelievable head start that the Beatles have had over the Stones over the decades. Both in CD sales, in glowing magazine features, in other artists harping about them as the major influence, in the sheer amount of fans in a country that 'matters' (U.S.), etc etc. I actually think if the Stones had broken up around the same time as the Beatles, the two would be on a more even level right now. But at this point, no way. Lennon's death 'helped' this too, as tragic as it may have been (although, personally having been a month old, it never affected me whatsoever, hence my general indifference towards the Beatles). But yeah, I don't think the Stones will ever catch up to the Beatles' "clout", let alone surpass them. It seems to me that the Beatles are the one band (or artist) whose influence is never questioned, never even rationally evaluated. Everyone else's place in rock is "debatable" or "subjective", but Beatles seem to surpass even the "art is subjective" thing. It can get a bit annoying at times, especially if you are a diehard music fan and yet don't care too much for the Beatles, but hey, it could have been worse... it couls have been a shittier band!

I'm not trying to defend the Beatles but 'Yer Blues' sounds hardly like New Kids On The Block to me. Otherwise, this is just a boring discussion. Grow up! The Stones and the Beatles always treated each other as comrades, despite all this "who's better than..."-bullshit amongst their fans. Of course there was a competition between them, but the musicians respected each other. Ever watched the Rock'n'Roll Circus? In the end, it is just a matter of taste. I like the Stones better, in fact I love them, but I also have no problem to admit that the Beatles were a @#$%& great band too.

never did understand the Beatles vs. Stones debate (knowing it was media fueled)......if you wanna compare a band to the Stones, at least pick one with balls



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-02 17:47 by Leonard Keringer.

Well, The Beatles was a sort of James Dean of rock/pop music, while The Stones is more like Marlon Brando. Beatles will always to be remebered as the icon of its times (60's), forever young and fresh and good-looking, thanks for dying young...A nice package. But The Stones grew old, and will be remembered not just from the young teenage stuff, but also from different masterpieces as "Last Tango in Paris", "Godfather", even from shit like "Superman The Movie"...

But I think in the future, when the incredible career of The Stones is finally over, then we (the people who do that sort of thing) are ready for a full analysis what really happened and who did accomplish and what. The Stones is not dead yet, and the whole band, it's place and significance in the world of rock music is very difficult to determinate, to give any "final" account. We all, fans, critics, band itself, are still involved in the process. I suppose that there will be time when the story of The Stones will be told in terms that are not even invented yet. Some particular fact that some Beatles or Elvis or Led Zeppelin or U2 might have sold more records will mean a shit then.

- Doxa

Right, here goes my theory.

IF the Stones packed it in after Exile On Main St, then in my humble opinion, things would be a hell of a lot different now. Maybe the Beatles WOULD still be cited, as the most groundbreaking and influential, but the Stones would certainly be more revered than they are now. As the Stones are still a functioning act and TECHNICALLY not all about the nostalgia (though by the set lists, you'd never guess), I think critics tend to forget just how important they were. If they called it quits in the early 70's, then the band would never of been allowed to enter mediocrity. No matter how FOND I am of much of their post-Exile material, it doesn't hold a candle to the big 4 and that stack of classic 60's singles under their belts.

We have to remember that the Beatles are stuck in a time capsule. Never ageing as a band. The Stones have just got older and greyer and ultimately, less relevant to Joe public and many who were once fans in the groups glorious heyday. My old man was a Stone fan in the 60's. He's looking forward to seeing them with me next year, but he couldn't give a damn about A Bigger Bang.

However, I'm extremely glad they didn't finish as I'm sure many predicted they would as the 70's rolled on, as they're still the greatest live band on earth and fans like myself wouldn’t have the opportunity to see the greats in the flesh.

name one person that says the beatles put on a great show. if thry do, they're liars!

Most of the Shea stadium probably disagree? Their club gigs before they were famous were legendary!!! I know cause ma step mum saw them in Stroud UK.

Head out of arse young man.......

ablett wrote:


>Head out of arse young man.......




first get ur head out of your ass. your stepmom lies or is a moron if she says early beatles shows are better than stones shows.



jackass

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ablett wrote:
>
>
> >Head out of arse young man.......
>
>
>
>
> first get ur head out of your ass. your stepmom
> lies or is a moron if she says early beatles shows
> are better than stones shows.
>
>
>
> jackass

How would you know?

Maybe your basing that notion on the fact that The Stones were very much a rhythm and blues group at the time and that it’s more akin to your personal taste than The Beatles rock 'n roll and pop.

I'm not doubting that The Stones were better musicians, they clearly were, but to STATE that the Stones were a better live act in the beginning when there isn't much in the way of recording to base your theory on, toped with the fact that you probably weren’t there is unjustifiable.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-02 19:18 by Big Al.

I don't think that the Stones has reached the top of their career, concerning the musical quality. They are all great blues musicians, and I hope that they have a future 50+. So they are free from any commercial hindrances and can do what they want. If I hear the numerous blues takes on the boots and the flip sites of their singles in the last 15 years and if I remember "Exile" and particularly gems like "Back of MY Hand", then I conclude that they are able to be the only rock band with essential contributions in their older age. So it hasn't been decided yet where they are ranked in the music history.

big al i don't mean they were a better live act in the early days, i mean overall career-wise. the beatles quit touring for their last few albums.

J.J.Flash Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> big al i don't mean they were a better live act in
> the early days, i mean overall career-wise. the
> beatles quit touring for their last few albums.


If I was a betting man, I'd personally put money on the Stones been the better live act in the early days. You just can't make a real judgement though. In the mid-60's when their respected shows were beginning to get taped, all you can hear is bloody screaming girls!

I do wonder how the Beatles would sound now. George Harrison got better as a guitarist as the years went on, Paul has always been an accomplished bassist, John was a great front man, but well, Ringo I suppose is still Ringo!

imo as far as a better live act....the Beatles sounded ok, but the visual appeal wasn't there...whereas the Stones live appeal (well you all know that story)

Its kind of a useless dicussion, but to say that Stones is No 1 after this tour is a joke.

RobertJohnson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't think that the Stones has reached the top
> of their career, concerning the musical quality.
> They are all great blues musicians, and I hope
> that they have a future 50+. So they are free from
> any commercial hindrances and can do what they
> want. If I hear the numerous blues takes on the
> boots and the flip sites of their singles in the
> last 15 years and if I remember "Exile" and
> particularly gems like "Back of MY Hand", then I
> conclude that they are able to be the only rock
> band with essential contributions in their older
> age. So it hasn't been decided yet where they are
> ranked in the music history.


You make some fine points, but really, I think the Stones ranking in musical history was determined quite some time ago.

You see, the greatness and grandeur of their 60's and early 70's output automatically puts them near the top of the list, but at the same time, all the fodder since (though there is some fantastic stuff amongst the dross!) and the constant touring means that many critics and fans alike, don't fully appreciate the brilliance of their key works. As I stated in an early post in this thread, if they'd called it quits after Exile On Main Street, they'd be up there with The Beatles.

Big Al Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RobertJohnson Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As I
> stated in an early post in this thread, if they'd
> called it quits after Exile On Main Street, they'd
> be up there with The Beatles.
>

Exile was somewhat overlooked upon its release, though. If they quit then, people may have said "If they quit in the sixties, they would be more revered."

Now that you bring that point up, I think maybe their albums are just plain underrated as opposed to the Beatles albums, period. Even back in the day, weren't the Beatles receiving better reviews? (Well, at least Sgt Pepper received better critiques than TSMR). Were Revolver/abbey Road/Let it Be "instant classics" back then? How did people initially respond to Let it Bleed?
It's really a testament to this idiotic society that the less a band manages to last, the better their ranking. I don't give a shit if they have mediocrities thrown in. Any working band that continues producing over a period of 40+ years is bound to have crap along the way.

bersagurra wrote:


>Its kind of a useless dicussion, but to say that Stones is No 1 after this tour is a joke.






another brittney spears fan spears their mind!!!!!!