October seems to be the month of Stones books - Keith's, Jerry's and this one
The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions on the Great Rock 'n' Roll Rivalry
Jim DeRogatis (Author), Greg Kot (Author)
October 16, 2010
Greg Kot has been the Chicago Tribune's rock music critic since 1990
Jim DeRogatis is the former pop music critic at the Chicago Sun-Times
[www.amazon.com]

I doubt there's anything more boring...

To my suprise it's quite entertaining. and they say from the beginning that the Stones much cooler than The Beatles. It is good starting point.

Looks like it might be worth having for the pictures, too. But even in the bit you can see in the "Look Inside", somebody states that it was Oldham's idea to recruit Charlie Watts into the band, so the Department of Historical Accuracy won't be pleased!

I'm thinking our boys could take these pansies any time.

Ned Flanders vs. Homer S.

which one has the cute one. or the one with rings? is this the same group that does whooo its boss

Quote
proudmary
October seems to be the month of Stones books - Keith's, Jerry's and this one
The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions on the Great Rock 'n' Roll Rivalry
Jim DeRogatis (Author), Greg Kot (Author)
October 16, 2010
Greg Kot has been the Chicago Tribune's rock music critic since 1990
Jim DeRogatis is the former pop music critic at the Chicago Sun-Times
[www.amazon.com]

This has been quite a year for the Stones' members. Exile reissue/remaster, Stones in Exile, Ladies & Gentlemen theatre and DVD/blueray DVD, Ronnie's album, Keith's book, Faces reunion tour, Charlie Watts and his jazz band in Europe, what next? They are doing great on their own, but it would be awesome to have a tour! I don't even care if they do not record a new album, would prefer they pull out some out takes and remaster those, issue a new album that way.

Mick's rock, I'm roll.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 18:59 by marchbaby.

I just can't imagine what John did with poor teddy bear backstage



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 23:08 by proudmary.

After 40 years of listening to people's opinions about the Beatles vs. the Stones (and reading countless threads on this website), I don't plan to pay money to read some more.

quote=drbryant]
After 40 years of listening to people's opinions about the Beatles vs. the Stones (and reading countless threads on this website), I don't plan to pay money to read some more.[/quote]






Mick's rock, I'm roll.

Quote
Edith Grove
I'm thinking our boys could take these pansies any time.

I think that the official Beatles image is misleading. I can imagine that at least John and Ringo knew where and how to hit. I think they had to due to the environment they grew up in.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-10-03 20:09 by Happy24.

Not very scientific but a very very personal (and quick done) opinion in a ten point scale 1962-1969:

The Beatles - The Rolling Stones:

Singing: 9-10 (JL-MJ)
Drumming: 6-7 (RS-CW)
Guitar: 6-8 (GH-KR)
Bass: 7-6 (PMC-BW)
Songwriting: 10-8 (JL/PMC-MJ/KR)
Production: 9-7 (GM-ALO/JM)
The Beatles 47 - The Rolling Stones 46.

But of course it's not as simple as that. I really like The Beatles but I love The Rolling Stones.
And what about atitude? The Beatles 6, The Stones 10?

Not even close. beetels were a boy/pop band.

Stones were and are the REAL DEAL

oh no, not this again...

The Beatles are NOT a boy pop band - but I prefer the Stones by a wide margin.

Mickscarey - If the Beatles music did not evolve beyond what it was in 1964 and early 1965 then I would agree but they took popular music to a whole other level that has not been duplicated to this day.

wrong. ridiculously overrated

After more then 40 years "disgusting" this topic....no comparison.

Beatles the greatest POP band.
The Rolling Stones the greatest Rock and Roll band.

For me The Stones are number one but the Beatles are close two

__________________________

Coke Cola vs Beer

Never really liked of comparing these two bands because both are great. Especially the Beatles' Hamburg era (1960-1962) is very interesting. Sadly there aren't many audio recordings available but it is great that even those from the last (December 1962) gigs are existing. Great and energetic recordings. 1963-1965 era was filled with easier melodic songs but from Revolver onwards it became again interesting.

Both are brilliant bands but to me The Stones still comes first.

Quote
NICOS
After more then 40 years "disgusting" this topic....no comparison.

Beatles the greatest POP band.
The Rolling Stones the greatest Rock and Roll band.

For me The Stones are number one but the Beatles are close two

Exactly....

"Not very scientific but a very very personal (and quick done) opinion in a ten point scale 1962-1969:

The Beatles - The Rolling Stones:

Singing: 9-10 (JL-MJ)
Drumming: 6-7 (RS-CW)
Guitar: 6-8 (GH-KR)
Bass: 7-6 (PMC-BW)
Songwriting: 10-8 (JL/PMC-MJ/KR)
Production: 9-7 (GM-ALO/JM)
The Beatles 47 - The Rolling Stones 46.

But of course it's not as simple as that. I really like The Beatles but I love The Rolling Stones.
And what about atitude? The Beatles 6, The Stones 10?"


If you were going to do a points system then the Stones have to win for points on live experience. Beatles didn't tour from 1966 onwards whereas the Stones embarked in two of the most legendary tours of all time in 1969 and 1972.

not even close!!!!!!!!

I hate to admit it but it was always the Beatles over the Stones for me until the night I saw the HBO concert in '03. At the conclusion of that show I realized that the Stones (at least in my mind) had finally surpassed the Beatles. Still love them both but the Stones are truly #1 from here on in to eternity for me.

Take the Stones and the points.....More important question. Giants vs Braves. GIANTS BAYBEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

The Beatles hit first but were done in 7-8 years. But those 8 yrs. generated many great songs which will always be timeless in music history. The $ generated from record sales and merchandising is off the charts.In terms of personal wealth, no band will ever generate this kind of financial success.

The Stones are still together. Almost 50 yrs. as a band. Incredible.Selling out stadiums and performing in their 60's. Many great songs which will also remain timeless.

It is a tie. Lennon/McCartney and Jagger/Richards. The two greatest songwriting combos EVER IMO. Without the two, rock and roll and music in general, wouldn't be the same. These icons will never be matched in terms of popularity and their impact. Thank goodness most of us got to enjoy BOTH The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.

Great post midnighttoker!

I have spoken with both Kot and DeRogatis a few times. They are good guys who know their rock and roll.

Looking forward to the book.

The Stones in my book by a pretty big margin, they get ya goin more, they roll better, they rock harder, and they take a straight in the eye view of life with some tough but greatly stated lyrics. Congrats to the Beatles for their happy melodies and never ending optimism, but the Stones for their better grasp on the way the world spins.

I had a chance to see this book. It's run of the mill opinion anyone could've written, some interesting memorabilia type images but, unless you're into editorials, it's not really worth it except as offering multiple points for arguing about, of course.

And most here don't need help in that department