Beatles or Stones

[YEK]

if dylan didn't get them stoned they would have gotten stoned eventually, i'd barely call that an influence

[lumpenprol]

weren't they already being bad boys even during their squeaky clean period? Seem to remember reading that...though it wasn't until later they dropped acid

[marf]

I love dylan, the stones, but the beatles were god like magic.

 

All 3 artists have excellent tracks that many over look

[kaini]

if dylan didn't get them stoned they would have gotten stoned eventually, i'd barely call that an influence

 

 

weren't they already being bad boys even during their squeaky clean period? Seem to remember reading that...though it wasn't until later they dropped acid

 

that was all mod amphetamines like what you see in quadrophenia, benzos and the like

 

personally i have no doubt they had a smoke before that (just fuckin listen to rain) but it is a sorta handy euphemism for the way dylan's music undoubtedly changed theirs at the same time.

[marf]

The Who I find over rated. Although I like them, but not THAT much.

[Guest dese manz hatin]

Haters gonna hate

[Guest inteeliguntdesign]

I'm shit at articulating what I think, but the Stones seemed to have been excellent constantly at one kind of Rock/Pop music: I'm thinking Street Fighter Man, Jumpin' Jack Flash. Their rhythm guitar was constantly amazing, topped by an equally excellent singer/songwriter. The Stones, compared to the Beatles, in their early years were miles better. And even later on I much prefer some of the Stones best songs to the Beatles. But eventually the Beatles seemed to have a far wider range, seemed to take their music, and music in general, at lot further. And for that I'd always have to chose the Beatles. But if it hadn't been for how different an album St. Pepper's was in general, and probably Abbey Road, I would have chosen the Stones. I have no idea about social relevance of either band, though. I have no idea about 60/70s culture, apart from the superficial stuff most people know.

[Guest Funktion]

that's like saying apple or some other wacky fruit that tastes like shit

[Guest dese manz hatin]

yass mang

[Guest KY]

I would say that The Beatles were real musicians and that The Rolling Stones were just rock stars.

 

nah.

 

 

i prefer the stones—stones until early seventies is pretty amazing. then again, i never gave the beatles a shot, and i've lived a relatively normal life in their absence.

[wahrk]

I would say that The Beatles were real musicians and that The Rolling Stones were just rock stars.

 

nah.

 

 

i prefer the stones—stones until early seventies is pretty amazing. then again, i never gave the beatles a shot, and i've lived a relatively normal life in their absence.

 

Hey, I'm not gonna hate on the Stones. They were great. They were THE rock and roll band, but that's just it. They were a band. The Beatles, on the other hand, were a group of amazing musicians (well, aside from Ringo). Paul, John, and George are each awesome on their own. They didn't need the others, but together they could do some badass stuff. The Stones, if taken apart, would probably be nothing. That, to me, makes The Beatles superior.

 

Also diversity. I also think that The Beatles' music was just straight up better, but that is mostly preference.

[Caretstik]

The Beatles by a mile, but then again I've never listened to a single Stones album in its entirety, I've got no excuse for that. Got to say though, that the Stones' songs from early in their career (i.e. early/mid 60s) are a lot more ballsy and sexier than The Beatles' were. I only really listen to The Beatles from Rubber Soul onwards.

[Guest dese manz hatin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYypUkMC6jI