Funny debate! The Beatles split 1970, two of them are dead so how about debating
something like Stones versus Metallica?

Stones is much better...

Stones are the best ever. beetles don't even rate.

Metallica are a GREAT band.

boring discussion. meanwhile you can enjoy my Cologne McCartney pics:

Quote
soulsurvivor1
I am sick and tired of hearing Beatles fans downplay the Stones and try to make the Beatles sound like they started music...NEWSFLASH..THE BEATLES ARE GIVEN LOTS OF CREDIT FOR THINGS THAT THEY JUST DID NOT DO...
* SUCH AS BE THE FIRST BAND TO INCORPORATE HORNS INTo THEIR MUSIC..just tell all the Rock N Roll bands from the 50s.. Little Richard, The Coasters, Elvis.
* Be The First To Use Three Part Harmony( 40s.50s & 60s bands such as The Andrew Sisters or The Everly Brothers or any Doo Wap Group or The Beach Boys
* Be The First To Use Strings In A Rock Ballads..just buy any Buddy Holly album.
* BE THE FIRST TO USE A SITAR.. the Yardbirds were using the instrument in early 65..I have the outakes...Oh and by the Way..The Sitar is About A Thousand Years Old..I Dont Think George Was The First To Play It
*STARTING PSYCHADELIC MUSIC.. just tell The Dead, The Airplane The Jimi Hendrix Experience or The Pink Floyd..AND THE LIST GOES ON....

(blah blah)

Who exactly ARE these people who 'claim' this? Another delusional moron with the mindset of a 10 year old who still thinks that this 'rivalry' is something worth bursting a blood vessel over? If so, it seems he has some company on here.

The debate is surely stupid since neither band invented anything. They did exactly what others had done before them, and their success was because of sociological reasons and marketing. From a cultural point of view the Beatles significance is the beatlemania and the Stones significance is Satisfaction and Brians and Micks faces. Concerning the music it's all about taste.

Quote
mickscarey
Stones are the best ever. beetles don't even rate.

Metallica are a GREAT band.

Melodica? Boy band!


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

Hey Gazza...Read any Beatles book written by a Beatle fan and you will see what I'm talking about. The problem is is that the young musical journalists take these Beatle books as fact and do not consider them for what they are; fan conjecture. Since they are young and do not know the history of Rock N Roll they write these articles that make wild claims for the Beatles. For instance two young writers just wrote a book that commerorates all the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame Inductees. The page on the Stones is filled with mistakes and opinions that undoubtedly were gathered by youngsters who weren't even born when the Stones were in their hay day. This type of irresponsible journalism fueled by ignorance, age, and faulty reports gathered on the internet is a disgrace. The article basically states that the Stones were nothing but Beatle copycats. This is ridiculuous; The Stones Played Blues and the Beatles played melodic Pop. As a musician, I can tell you that The Stones and Beatles in no way structured their original songs in the same way. The Beatles use a ton of minorchords(sevenths & ninths) The Stones Do Not;Basic (1 4 5) for The Stones. The bands also sounded nothing alike nor did they play any of the same type songs.
The book also claimed that The Stones even copied The Beatles album cover design. The claim was that The Stones only used a plain white cover on their Beggars Banquet Album becausew The Beatles used a plain white cover for The White Album. This is also ridiculous. First off, The Stones original album cover design for the Beggars Banquet album was to be a bathroom wall showing a toilet and graffitti. The reord company rejected this cover. The Stones pushed for the cover and so the stalemate began. This was a popular story and was covered by all the musical papers including Rolling Stone and Billboard. The Stones finally settled on a cover that was supposed to be an invitation to a party ..The Beggars Banquet. The invitation was to be in beige with gold trim; many foreign copies have this feature...for some reasons US copies do not..and so the Copy Cat Album Cover Fairy Tale Begins!! It is countles Stories Lke These That People Actually Believe...Just Buy The Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame Book And See For Yourself!!

* Other books have claimed that the Beatles and their music had a hand in ending communism..I mean ...Are You Kidding?
* Other books claim that The Beatles did for Eastern Meditation as The Stones did for blues music..Again ..are you kidding? Eastern meditation was nothing more than a two year passing fad for some of the Hippie Counter-Culture.
The Rolling Stones and bands like The Yardbirdsand The Animals were responsible for exposing blues to an all white audience. Hearing blues on white radio stations was a major step in the formation of bands like Zeppelin, Cream, Ten Years After. It also spurred interest in the original Blues artists work. Artists like Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters, BB King, Sonny Boy Williamson all were able to revitalize their careers and perform and sell records to a white audience. I recently watched a special on The Blues that mentioned The Rolling Stones contribution to blues music. The special included commentary by Howling Wolf and BB King. Howling Wolf said that he was very grateful for the Rolling Stones. He said that the Stones version of Little Red Rooster was a major step in getting his music recognized by a white record buying audience. He also said that his appearance on Shindig along with The Stones was a direct result of his new found popularity thanks to The Stones and their 1964 version of Little Red Rooster.To this day Little Red Rooster is still the only pure blues song ever to reach number one on the Brittish charts. BB King also said that he also noticed a more mixed audience after The Stones brought Blues into the mainstream. He said that by 1963-1964 much of his black audience seemed to disappear. He also noted that his audience began getting more mixed. He credits The Rolling Stones, for exposing his music to a concert going-record buying public. To further the point, Blues had a complete revival,starting in the late 60s and continues to this day. Make No Mistake, The Rolling Stones had a major part in preserving this music. Maybe the most famous Blues recording studio of all time is Chess Records located in Chicago. The Original studio has long since closed down. The studio has captured some of the greatest blues records of all time: artists like Howling Wolf, Muddy Watters and The Rolling Stones were recorded at this famous studio. Nowadays, the studio is a museum that offers a tour. The Rolling Stones are part of this tour. The tour guide gives thanks to The Stones and mentions their musical and inspirational contribution to Blues Music. A picture of The Rolling Stones also hangs in the museum.

Charlie



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-29 00:31 by soulsurvivor1.

The Stones are the best ever

I didn't expect 3 pages of comments on this stupid war!

Once for all, I like both ,and I prefer the STONES !
The one who tell me that he doesn't like the BEATLES
because he like the STONES is a moron!
Both Bands are great!

This guy who wrote on Guitar 101 has already won!
One are angry because he wrote that stupid thing!

If tomorrow, one of you write " Why the BEATLES suck" on a BEATLES Board, I'm pretty sure that it will be the same mess!

So cool down, it's not the end of the world !
Is it a shame to like both Bands, I don't think so!

What I hate is those guys like the one who wrote on Guitar 101, who think,
that because he like the BEATLES, he is the best !
It's not because i'm a Rolling STONES fan, that i think I'm the best so far...
I don't like also this superior spirit he think he have !

In France, when Rock'n'Roll entered in the Establishment, the beatles were always named before the STONES. It 's like the ROLLING STONES music was not made for these Ladies and Gentlemen of the Establishment. If it is, well done, that's the reason why I like the STONES!

HMN

Well at least James Hetfield hasn't got cloth ears:

"Yesterday" – THE BEATLES

James Hetfield: "It instantly connected with me. It makes you think, but not too gard."
[www.roadrunnerrecords.com]


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"

What are "cloth ears"? I just saw Metallica at Mad Square Garden and his ears looked fine.

Thanks

PS-Stones are the greatest ever.

Quote
stonethobo
boring discussion. meanwhile you can enjoy my Cologne McCartney pics:

Great pics stonehobo! Really dig Maccas' 1960 Sunburst!

I think they are both the best in what they did or do

__________________________

Well,the Stones ROCK!!!

Both great bands! Why debate who is better? Useless. Love them both.

Not me. Stones are rulers of the rock universe

okay mickscarey, we all know you love the stones and worship them and will do anything to kiss mick jagger's feet. settle down, boy.

Yes, Stones are #1.

Thank you for agreeing!!!!!

Merry Christmas

when did i agree? all i did was make an observation.

Quote
soulsurvivor1
Hey Gazza...Read any Beatles book written by a Beatle fan and you will see what I'm talking about. The problem is is that the young musical journalists take these Beatle books as fact and do not consider them for what they are; fan conjecture. Since they are young and do not know the history of Rock N Roll they write these articles that make wild claims for the Beatles. For instance two young writers just wrote a book that commerorates all the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame Inductees. The page on the Stones is filled with mistakes and opinions that undoubtedly were gathered by youngsters who weren't even born when the Stones were in their hay day. This type of irresponsible journalism fueled by ignorance, age, and faulty reports gathered on the internet is a disgrace. The article basically states that the Stones were nothing but Beatle copycats. This is ridiculuous; The Stones Played Blues and the Beatles played melodic Pop. As a musician, I can tell you that The Stones and Beatles in no way structured their original songs in the same way. The Beatles use a ton of minorchords(sevenths & ninths) The Stones Do Not;Basic (1 4 5) for The Stones. The bands also sounded nothing alike nor did they play any of the same type songs.
The book also claimed that The Stones even copied The Beatles album cover design. The claim was that The Stones only used a plain white cover on their Beggars Banquet Album becausew The Beatles used a plain white cover for The White Album. This is also ridiculous. First off, The Stones original album cover design for the Beggars Banquet album was to be a bathroom wall showing a toilet and graffitti. The reord company rejected this cover. The Stones pushed for the cover and so the stalemate began. This was a popular story and was covered by all the musical papers including Rolling Stone and Billboard. The Stones finally settled on a cover that was supposed to be an invitation to a partry ..The Beggars Banquet. The invitation was to be in beige with gold trim; many foreign copies have this feature...for some reasons US copies do not..and so the Copy Cat Album Cover Fairy Tale Begins!! It is countles Stories Lke These That People Actually Believe...Just Buy The Rock N Roll Hall Of Fame Book And See For Yourself!!

* Other books have claimed that the Beatles and their music had a hand in ending communism..I mean ...Are You Kidding?
* Other books claim that The Beatles did for Eastern Meditation as The Stones did for blues music..Again ..are you kidding? Eastern meditation was nothing more than a two year passing fad for some of the Hippie Counter-Culture.
The Rolling Stones and bands like The Yardbirdsand The Animals were responsible for exposing blues to an all white audience. Hearing blues on white radio stations was a major step in the formation of bands like Zeppelin, Cream, Ten Years After. It also spurred interest in the original Blues artists work. Artists like Howling Wolf, Muddy Waters, BB King, Sonny Boy Williamson all were able to revitalize their careers and perform and sell records to a white audience. I recently watched a special on The Blues that mentioned The Rolling Stones contribution to blues music. The special included commentary by Howling Wolf and BB King. Howling Wolf said that he was very grateful for the Rolling Stones. He said that the Stones version of Little Red Rooster was a major step min getting his music recognized by a white record buying audience. He also said that his appearance on Shindig along with The Stones was a direct result of his new found popularity thanks to The Stones and their 1964 version of Little Red Rooster.To this day Little Red Rooster is still the only pure blues song ever to reach number one on the Brittish charts. BB King also said that he also noticed a more mixed audience after The Stones brought Blues into the mainstream. He said that by 1963-1964 much of his black audience seemed to disappear. He also noted that his audience began getting more mixed. He credits The Rolling Stones, for exposing his music to a concert going-record buying public. To further the point, Blues had a complete revival,starting in the late 60s and continues to this day. Make No Mistake, The Rolling Stones had a major part in preserving this music. Maybe the most famous Blues recording studio of all time is Chess Records located in Chicago. The Original studio has long since closed down. The studio has captured some of the greatest blues records of all time: artists like Howling Wolf, Muddy Watters and The Rolling Stones were recorded at this famous studio. Nowadays, the studio is a museum that offers a tour. The Rolling Stones are part of this tour. The tour guide gives thanks to The Stones and mentions their musical and inspirational contribution to Blues Music. A picture of The Rolling Stones also hangs in the museum.

Charlie

Thanks for the informative history lesson, o master.

For a guy who hates The Beatles so much you sure spend a lot of time analysing and reading books about them.

Get over it or seek professional help. Seriously.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-28 21:43 by Gazza.

Quote
mickscarey
it is astounding how many people come to this site to adore the beetles, or srpingsteen or mccartney (now, THAT is boring music). Why not just go to their respective sites and let us celebrate the true greatest band of all time here? It is getting real old. Kinda easy one, yes?

And IF you insist on talking about the beetles why not go to the sites of N'Sync or the Backside Boys and post messages there? Makes more sense, right?

And it's astounding how many narrow minded idiots like you come on here to just complain about everything.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

well it will always be talked about probably..Beatles vs Stones.....
personally, I like the Beatles..but once I started listening to the Rolling Stones, they (the Stones) seemed to be more down to earth, and the music felt more real to me somehow. more on a gut level. More compelling,
whereas the Beatles' songs come across as glowing in a frame, in a way. Not as direct and visceral. If not for John, the Beatles might have been one of the Mersey Beat bands that just get nostalgia play now, like Gerry and the Pacemakers...

Let Mickscarey ramble he is the type of person that you can not argue with. Don't let him get you going!

Tis the season of the nerd methinks.

Once upon a time----there were the" BEATLES"--but knowking..down by rolling stones

under the boardwalk---down by the sea

i think perhaps the reason why some people don't like the beatles or don't "get them" is because, and i say this knowing it might seem radical thinking to some, but the beatles music is deeper than the stones. there's more intellectualism involved in understanding the brilliance of what the beatles did. with the stones, they are rock and roll. simple as that. rock and roll doesn't involve thinking. let's face it, the majority of mankind is dumb, intellectuals are frowned upon. to fully appreciate and understand classical music, for example, there is an element of intelligence that is needed. not to totally compare the beatles to mozart, but hell, even leonard bernstein praised the beatles!

This week in Holland they broad cast the top 2000 (Radio2.nl)

The Stones have 33 songs in the top 2000 and the Beatles 55

36 Rolling Stones Angie 1973
43 Rolling Stones Sympathy for the devil 1973
65 Rolling Stones Paint it black 1966
157 Rolling Stones (I can't get no) Satisfaction 1965
192 Rolling Stones Gimme shelter 1969
231 Rolling Stones You can't always get what you want 1969
426 Rolling Stones Wild horses 1971
609 Rolling Stones Ruby Tuesday 1967
631 Rolling Stones Brown sugar 1971
678 Rolling Stones Honky tonk women 1969
704 Rolling Stones It's all over now 1964
717 Rolling Stones Jumpin' Jack flash 1968
737 Rolling Stones As tears go by 1966
743 Rolling Stones She's a rainbow 1967
847 Rolling Stones Fool to cry 1976
851 Rolling Stones Little red rooster 1965
874 Rolling Stones Waiting on a friend 1981
896 Rolling Stones Lady Jane 1966
1058 Rolling Stones Time is on my side 1965
1092 Rolling Stones Start me up 1981
1108 Rolling Stones The last time 1965
1139 Rolling Stones Let's spend the night together 1967
1142 Rolling Stones Midnight rambler 1969
1259 Rolling Stones Miss you 1978
1302 Rolling Stones Memory motel 1976
1412 Rolling Stones Under my thumb 1966
1500 Rolling Stones Dead flowers 1971
1644 Rolling Stones That's how strong my love is 1965
1766 Rolling Stones Heart of stone 1965
1840 Rolling Stones 2000 Light years from home 1967
1870 Rolling Stones Time waits for no one 1974
1901 Rolling Stones Tell me 1965
1988 Rolling Stones (Get your kicks on) Route 66 1964


Not the complete list

23 Beatles Hey Jude 1968
44 Beatles Yesterday 1965
54 Beatles Let it be 1970
71 Beatles A day in the life 1967
132 Beatles Blackbird 1968

__________________________

Quote
bernardanderson
i think perhaps the reason why some people don't like the beatles or don't "get them" is because, and i say this knowing it might seem radical thinking to some, but the beatles music is deeper than the stones.

Nah. Its mainly because, like U2, they sell more records and get more critical acclaim.

It's pure penis-envy, and nothing anyone with any more than half a brain should really care about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-28 23:26 by Gazza.

I could care less if Mariah Carey or Spice Girls sell more records than Stones.

It doesnt prove that they are better musically.

That somewhat accentuates the point I'm making, though. Those acts aren't seen as 'competitors' because they exist in a different market, are entirely different musically and very few people ever take them seriously from a critical perspective.