You know we gotta do it: The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[Brooklyn329]

I'll admit, I'm a little biased. I LOVE The Beatles and will gladly "stan" for them unti the end of time. However, I've been starting to mess with the Stones in recent months, and I can't front, these dudes go hard. "You Can't Always Get What You Want"? Classic. "Wild Horses"? Classic. "Start Me Up"? Classic. Anyway fellow Alt. Musicers, I wanted to know your opinions on the subject. Who do you prefer and why?

[Free Agent]

Stones are aight...Beatles are better though.

[lyra_us]

Even the Stones would laugh at anyone trying to claim they were on the Beatles level. Stones are probably the GOAT rock and roll group of all-time. Beatles are the GOAT group period.

This is what John Lennon had to say about Jagger and the Stone (circa 1970)

"I think Mick got jealous. I was always very respectful of Mick and the Stones, but he said a lot of sort of tarty things about the Beatles, which I am hurt by because, you know, I can knock the Beatles, but don't let Mick Jagger knock them.....If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were. They are not in the same class, musicwise or powerwise, never were....I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fukkin' album. Every fukkiin' thing we did, Mick does exactly the same - he imitates us. And I would like one of you fukkin' underground people to point it out. You know, Satanic Majesties is Pepper; ``We Love You,'' it's the most fukkin' bullshyt, that's ``All You Need Is Love.''

That being said, the Stones are great. "Gimme Shelter" is my favourite song of the 1960s. It must have been an incredible time to be a young music fan when the Stones and Beatles were at their peak release new albums every few months.

[skanky80]

Stones, easily. I cant see how people can think the Beatles were even close to making the same quality of music, its just not happening

[nineteen80sbaby]

I think great arguments can be made for both sides.

To me, The Beatles are the perfect music group, they never made a bad song and a large chunk of their songs are hits, they have an incredible streak of no.1 songs as well. Granted, they broke up before they got washed up, while The Stones have be at it for what, almost 50 years lol. And, they've put out some bull**** after Exile on Main St.. But they are the biggest touring musicians out and still kick major azz live (as does McCartney and Ringo). As it was back then, the Beatles were the band you could take home with your mom, while the Stones were "bad boys" and in terms of "coolness" and art/culture, i think the Stones have them beat, but The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus." Overall, I think The Stones best songs are better than The Beatles, but ehh, I dunno, too tough to call

[lyra_us]

Stones, easily. I cant see how people can think the Beatles were even close to making the same quality of music, its just not happening

The Beatles had twice the range of the Stones. I can't see how anyone could fail to acknowledge that or claim that the "quality of music" is not there when it comes to the Beatles. Songs like "A Day in the Life", "Tomorrow Never Knows", and "Strawberry Fields" were miles ahead of anything else at the time they dropped. Plus, any group that can release "Helter Skelter" and "Hey Jude" within the same calendar year is a very special kind of group.

[Brooklyn329]

I'm surprised this thread actually got replies considering I made it over 2 months ago. But oh well.

[infamous003]

Beatles, easily. I never understood the big deal with the Stones, although I do respect their live show.

[RAYDOGG]

for me the stones, and led zepellin catalog has always been overrated, Ill take doors & beatles anyday over rolling & Led