The Stones added to the pre-existing Blues catalog, the Beatles created an entirely new genre of music. I like the Blues so I favor the Stones for listening, however, I have no doubt that the Beatles were a far greater band.
Love both bands. They were so different in style that a comparison is almost impossible. The Stones was a R&B band in the beginning, The Beatles was a pop band. But they were friends with each other.
Groupies said that Richards was "the nice one". Also the Stones output from 1968-1981 eclipsed that of the Beatles, let alone pretty much all other rock bands during that period. I love the Beatles, but that era of the Rolling Stones really was the pinnacle of rock music IMO. YMMV.
It was really the opposite. The Beatles were leather clad working class lads from the mean streets of Liverpool. The stones were cardigan sweater wearing middle class teens from the suburbs of London.
I rate the Stones as a very good R and B band. There is no similarity between them and the Liverpool group that turned music on its head and influenced every act that followed.
Everyone of these goes pretty much exactly the same way - insert any band into the story, mention the volatility over and over, mention the genius/destructive dichotomy......
But both the Beatles and Rolling Stones did a lot of collaboration, when the John and Paul got together with Mick and Keith, they gave them I wanna be your man! And Paul and John did some background vocals on some Rolling Stone songs like We Love You one other song, which I cannot think of at this time. Nevertheless, what kept them popular was the timing of the releases from both the Beatles and Stones.
Actually, George did not want to write any songs for the Beatles, but John and Paul encouraged him! As well as Ringo, but the Rolling Stones was a different story! Brian loved the Blues more, Bill Wymann got to write two songs for the Stones. In another Land and Downtown Suzie, which Mick did the lead vocals! In Another Land was Bill Wymann's lead vocals. Charlie was never interested in writing any song since he was more of a Jazz Musician than a Rock Musician.
But both bands must have had some respect for each other. In the seventies John Lennon used to go out drinking with Mick Jagger and Keith Richard said many years later that George Harrison was above the word "gentleman".
@@martinjenkins8270 what do you mean by that is the stones are still trying to catch the leaders of the pack the leaders of the universe musically, that are so fucking astronomically far out ahead of anyone there’s no catching up for anybody sorry mate
The Stones early hits were covers like Not Fade away, Little Red Rooster, and Its all over now. But they made those songs their own and few would have heard of the originals.
The Beatles are the best band ever, but The Rolling Stones are the greatest Rock N Roll band ever. They are both capable of stepping into eachothers territory on occasion but their greater strengths as bands are different.
I love all 3 bands; Beatles, Stones and The Who and accept their differences, but I will never forgive Jagger and Richards for how they did Brian Jones dirty.
@@RupertBunny-r5o Not just in his opinion but all those that matter. From classical musicians through Jazz greats, Soul artists, Rock greats to Ozzy and Lemmy. Look it's a troll!
The two greatest Rock bands were THE BEATLES and The Rolling Stones. I would list KISS and Aerosmith next but it's just my opinion and everybody has one.
The same redundant "idea" over & over & over &. . . Next, McCartney? Huh? Other than the photos at the beginning, McCartney is never even mentioned: "He opens up. . ." Where? When? What?
The Stones and The Who are both better than the Beatles...The Stones are my personal number one and The Who number two..The Beatles are further down on my top ten list
I THINK NOT...THE STONES RAPE MURDER ITS JUST A SHOT AWAY..BEATLES YOU CAN DYNDICATE ANY BOAT YOU ROW ...REALLY ???STONES ARE BETTER ESPECIALLY THE MICK TAYLOR ERA
None of this stopped McCartney from getting Brian Jones to help him out by playing sax on one of his early tracks.
The Stones added to the pre-existing Blues catalog, the Beatles created an entirely new genre of music. I like the Blues so I favor the Stones for listening, however, I have no doubt that the Beatles were a far greater band.
The Beatles did not invent pop music. They only became interesting when acid made its impact.
Crap wasn't a new genre.
@@RupertBunny-r5o Dear, you're simply unique. One in a million to say that crap.
What the Beatles really did was move the entire pop/rock genre on dramatically in a relatively short period of time.
@@RupertBunny-r5o But you are a new type of 'Tool'! A desperate attempt to look cool; FAIL!
Love both bands. They were so different in style that a comparison is almost impossible. The Stones was a R&B band in the beginning, The Beatles was a pop band. But they were friends with each other.
My older brother was Beatles and me Rolling Stones, it always stay a friendly opposition of taste no more, the rest came from the medias
Groupies said that Richards was "the nice one". Also the Stones output from 1968-1981 eclipsed that of the Beatles, let alone pretty much all other rock bands during that period. I love the Beatles, but that era of the Rolling Stones really was the pinnacle of rock music IMO. YMMV.
You better be joking?🤣
They show early day pictures of the Beatles with later photos of the Stones to make the Beatles look more clean cut.
It was really the opposite. The Beatles were leather clad working class lads from the mean streets of Liverpool. The stones were cardigan sweater wearing middle class teens from the suburbs of London.
@@bigezg You are right! But it was Brian Epstein that changed that look for the Beatles to look clean cut!
Do not be ignorant.
Both bands were Tavistock creations.
They were all good friends, the "good guys vs bad guys" schtick was all for publicity.
Fact.
Yup
To get the drug cartels up and thriving?
flatearthler
I like The Beatles ..but I love The Rolling Stones
I rate the Stones as a very good R and B band. There is no similarity between them and the Liverpool group that turned music on its head and influenced every act that followed.
Everyone of these goes pretty much exactly the same way - insert any band into the story, mention the volatility over and over, mention the genius/destructive dichotomy......
Come on...Sir Paul played on "Hackney Diamonds", best rock album this century!
Never heard of it
@@philhiller-mn1gw The Stones! Where ya been, man?
But both the Beatles and Rolling Stones did a lot of collaboration, when the John and Paul got together with Mick and Keith, they gave them I wanna be your man! And Paul and John did some background vocals on some Rolling Stone songs like We Love You one other song, which I cannot think of at this time. Nevertheless, what kept them popular was the timing of the releases from both the Beatles and Stones.
a person can love both a great steak and a great fried chicken. Really no need to pick a favorite. For me it depended on my mood.
Love both of them..At least Lennon and Mcartney gave George one song an album. Keith and Mick couldn't bring themselves to give Brian one song....
Actually, George did not want to write any songs for the Beatles, but John and Paul encouraged him! As well as Ringo, but the Rolling Stones was a different story! Brian loved the Blues more, Bill Wymann got to write two songs for the Stones. In another Land and Downtown Suzie, which Mick did the lead vocals! In Another Land was Bill Wymann's lead vocals. Charlie was never interested in writing any song since he was more of a Jazz Musician than a Rock Musician.
But both bands must have had some respect for each other. In the seventies John Lennon used to go out drinking with Mick Jagger and Keith Richard said many years later that George Harrison was above the word "gentleman".
The Stones are still going the greatest rock band ever
After THE BEATLES.
@ it’s an aged old argument.We’ll agree to disagree 😁
@@martinjenkins8270 what do you mean by that is the stones are still trying to catch the leaders of the pack the leaders of the universe musically, that are so fucking astronomically far out ahead of anyone there’s no catching up for anybody sorry mate
no no just richards and jagger remain
And the Beatles, the best rock band ever!
The Stones early hits were covers like Not Fade away, Little Red Rooster, and Its all over now. But they made those songs their own and few would have heard of the originals.
The Rolling Stones don't even come close to The Beatles. The Rolling Stones have only created a few good songs. The Beatles, hundreds, and better.
If the Beatles hadn't George Martin........
What songs did George Martin write?🤔@@luizoswaldoabreu2752
The Beatles are the best band ever, but The Rolling Stones are the greatest Rock N Roll band ever.
They are both capable of stepping into eachothers territory on occasion but their greater strengths as bands are different.
Thanks for your opinion
I said the same thing!
Whats the shock ?
ruclips.net/video/SyNt5zm3U_M/видео.html Now what band at that time could write and preform like that. No one. Friggin awesome.
I thought this was a Macca interview.
I love all 3 bands; Beatles, Stones and The Who and accept their differences, but I will never forgive Jagger and Richards for how they did Brian Jones dirty.
Beatles song writing trounces the stones.
They out wrote them by 70% . Love stones, but they are a far behind 2 nd place
70% more crap?
You’re clearly very uneducated in the art of composing music.
@@BobbyB-cs5ym In your opinion, whatever that is worth.
@@RupertBunny-r5o Not just in his opinion but all those that matter. From classical musicians through Jazz greats, Soul artists, Rock greats to Ozzy and Lemmy. Look it's a troll!
The two greatest Rock bands were THE BEATLES and The Rolling Stones. I would list KISS and Aerosmith next but it's just my opinion and everybody has one.
Admitting that KISS & Aerosmith are worthy of consideration in this class betrays you as a clueless twatwaffle.
KISS? Seriously??? Are you 12?
Your description isn’t what I remember at the time or what both bands have said since … of course they were rivals but not like you’re suggesting!
The same redundant "idea" over & over & over &. . .
Next, McCartney? Huh? Other than the photos at the beginning, McCartney is never even mentioned: "He opens up. . ." Where? When? What?
Overly repetitive. The same points made again and again and again.
More well-known shock horror crap from the vultures of Golden Stars.
The Stones and The Who are both better than the Beatles...The Stones are my personal number one and The Who number two..The Beatles are further down on my top ten list
No they're not lmao
You've found humor......
@JustineLaLoba NO HUMOR THE STONES AND THE WHO ARE BETTER THAN THE BEATLES .TAKE A WALK ...YOU DONT HAVE THE RIGHT TO REPLY TO ME
@@charlessteenburgen That is just your opinion, and you are entitled to it!
Sorry, but this is repetitive nonsense.
Beatles song writing trounces the stones.
They out wrote them by 70% . Love stones, but they are a far behind 2 nd place
I THINK NOT...THE STONES RAPE MURDER ITS JUST A SHOT AWAY..BEATLES YOU CAN DYNDICATE ANY BOAT YOU ROW ...REALLY ???STONES ARE BETTER ESPECIALLY THE MICK TAYLOR ERA