The Beatles were never good live I saw McCartney solo good but nothing great. Stones live sound energy excitement..the Beatles biggest advantage was George Martin there records were recorded so well in that era sound like they coukd have been recorded yesterday..Andrew loog holdham sucked as a producer. If the stones had him as there producer wouldn't have been close..the stones sounded even better once Jimmy Miller became there producer
I preferred The Beatles until 1967. Then I heard "Letˋs Spend The Night Together" without knowing the bandˋ s name. I felt right away that this kind of music suited my temperament better. The fascination has continued for the last sixty years.
I enjoyed the Beatles, particularly when I first started getting into music, and I still admire their songwriting skills. But they were very much of their time. On the other hand, the Rolling Stones have much deeper roots going way back into blues, soul, funk, and country, and later into reggae. Stones music feels more part of a rich musical continuum. That’s one reason why I prefer them. Plus the Stones seem like a real band - each member knowing their place but improvising and playing off each other on stage in ways the Beatles never did, or rarely got the chance to. You can tell the Rolling Stones still get a lot of joy from playing together.
My favorite band is the original Rolling Stones with Brian Jones. I just love their early blues roots and the Jagger/Richards compositions like "The Last Time", "Satisfaction", Get Off Of My Cloud", "Paint It Black" hit me harder than the Beatles - it's a personal preference to say who's music you like more. The Stones were the pioneers of blues/rock, which became a big sound in rock music with other bands as well. The Stones had the multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones who added a lot of color to the Stones sound in the 1960s by playing so many different instruments like guitar, harmonica, mountain dulcimer, marimbas, recorder, Indian sitar, mellotron, concert harp, saxophone, autoharp, with amazing success. If you want to go by who made the biggest impact in music it's the Beatles. They sold more records than the Stones, they inspired more people to write songs (Bob Dylan was a big part of this as well), and the Beatles were more experimental in the studio - they were one of the first well-known bands to use the recording studio as though it was an instrument itself. The Beatles went through a lot of different musical changes and were able to keep their fan base and have massive commercial success doing it, whereas other artists lose their fan base when they become more experimental, which is what happened to the Stones with Their Satanic (although I love it), even hardcore Beach Boys fans were disappointed with Pet Sounds at the time although both albums are now favorites. Also, if you are going to compare the two bands, which I don't think you can, you have to cut it off in 1970 when the Beatles broke up. It's not fair to add number one album and singles by the Stones to the list after the Beatles disbanded. To me it's a matter of personal preference as to who's music is better, but the Beatles were the biggest phenomenon in music history and they will always be the winner. With that being said, the Stones are the best band I've ever heard.
The Beatles is the greatest rock band of all time. The Rolling Stones are their peers. I guess that sums it up for me, lol. I know and cherish the entire catalog of The Beatles music. I know a dozen or so Stones songs, a handful of which I really like. In other words, this is not much of a contest in my mind...
The Beatles all the way. They were more eclectic, more adventurous, more trailblazing, more groundbreaking, more EVERYTHING! Satisfaction is way overrated. Oh, and the Stones are not the original band that started in 1964. Great analogy with Dean and Brando, never thought of it that way. Beatles forever!
The 60’s era Rolling Stones win for me. Why? Paint It Black, Gimme Shelter, Under My Thumb, Sympathy For The Devil, She’s A Rainbow, Get Off Of My Cloud, Jumpin’ Jack Flash, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, etc...that’s why.
The 60s era Beatles win for me. why? please please me, twist and shout, i want to hold your hand, yesterday, i feel fine, ticket to ride, paper back writer, taxman, Sgt. peppers lonely hearts club band, DAY IN THE LIFE, strawberry fields forever, hello goodbye, i am the walrus, come together, penny lane, while my guitar gently weeps, somethings, here comes the sun, in my life, ob la di ob la da, birthday, dont let me down, dig a pony, hey jude, let it be, get back, revolution, ect, i could go on forever.... thats why
@Mike Barooshian The Beatles have played in stadiums. In Shea Stadium or Candlestick Park, just to name a few. Breaking up in 1970 was the right thing to do for them. If they had continued, like the Rolling Stones did, things wouldn't go as well as they had gone. Their relationships were diminishing and if they had continued, their legacy would slowly have been bitten away by a bad album. They stopped just at the right moment for their legacy to become legendary, for them to grow out into the genius, mystic, superstars; the way we know them today. The Rolling Stones made the mistake to continue; after 1972 they never made a good album again and their legacy slowly began to crumble underneath that. It's about time they stop.
The Beatles: Please, Please Me, TWIST AND SHOUT, SHE LOVES YOU, From Me To You, I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND This Boy, It Won't Be Long, All I've Got To Do, ALL MY LOVING, A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, If I Fell, AND I LOVE HER, Can't Buy Me Love, Anytime At All, Things We Said Today, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, I Feel Fine, No Reply, I'm A Loser, I'll Follow The Sun, Eight Days A Week, Every Little Thing, What You're Doing, HELP! TICKET TO RIDE, YESTERDAY, I've Just Seen A Face, Day Tripper, We Can Work It Out, NORWEGIAN WOOD, NOWHERE MAN, Think For Yourself, The Word, MICHELLE, Girl, IN MY LIFE, Wait, If I Needed Someone, Paperback Writer, Rain, Taxman, ELEANOR RIGBY, I'm Only Sleeping, HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE, YELLOW SUBMARINE, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Got To Get You Into My Life, TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS, STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER, PENNY LANE, Sgt. Pepper, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS, LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS, Getting Better, Fixing A Hole, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without You, A DAY IN THE LIFE, THE FOOL ON THE HILL, I AM THE WALRUS, ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE, Lady Madonna, Back In The U.S.S.R, DEAR PRUDENCE, WHILE MY GUITAR GENTLY WEEPS, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, BLACKBIRD, Martha My Dear, I Will, Julia, Yer Blues, Mother Nature's Son, Hey Bulldog, COME TOGETHER, SOMETHING, Oh Darling, I WANT YOU (SHE'S SO HEAVY), HERE COMES THE SUN, Because, ABBEY ROAD MEDLEY, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, LET IT BE, THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD, Get Back, Free As A Bird, Real Love. Every song I just mentioned is better, more beautiful and melodic then every song you named.
@@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205 While I appreciate your enthusiasm, its a bit uneducated. Some Girls (1978) and Tatto You ( 1981) are great albums. And the rest of the 70s era albums each produced at least one single that still gets airplay today. " Angie" (1973) " Its Only Rock n Roll" (1974) " Fool to Cry" ( 1976) "Emotional Rescue" (1979). Cmon
The Beatles have a song for every single mood. I've never cried over or because of a Stones song, for example. The Stones just don't resonate with me the same way as the Beatles. For me personally, this was an easy choice: The Beatles all the way.
The Beatles genuinely transformed music in a profound way, and not just once. They kept doing it over and over, album after album. They helped to transform modern culture, too, although that's a different discussion. The Rolling Stones are gifted, yes, among the greats, certainly, but really, no one artist or group has had the impact the Beatles had, before or since in the modern era.
I give the edge to the Beatles on musical quality. They were a band that evolved musically..(almost hard to believe that "She loves you" and "Come Together" were recorded by the same group) and they werent afraid to experiment. I give the Stones an edge on energy and fun. Certainly they were a better concert act than the Beatles...but thats almost not fair considering the Beatles played their last concert for a paying audience in 1966. A little over 30 years ago...i saw the Stones live in Oakland(last tour with Bill Wyman) And 6 months later I saw McCartney live in Berkeley.(1/2 of the set was Beatles tunes) While I LOVED hearing Paul do all those great Beatles songs inclding Elenor Rigby, Let it Be, long and winding Road, and yesterday to name but a few... The Stones concert is the best rock show i have ever seen PERIOD. They played 2 1/2 hours without an intermission and blew the Oakland Coliseum AWAY! Not just the great tunes...but the energy and showmanship of Mick and Keith
Agree seen the stones in 89 and McCartney in 90 both great shows but the stones way better live great energy and songs...seen the stones many times since 89. .94 97,99,03 06 06 13 19..every time a great show
The Beatles have the larger repertoire of truly exquisite songs, but the Stones are incomparable giants in their own right...The Fab Four's got the edge but Stones got that Passion
Hey I'm classically proficient and I write rock songs too, plus I have a better command of melody than the beatles I do it all myself I pale in no comparison.
The Rolling Stones are only mimicking Black Rhythm and Blues Artist even getting their name from the Muddy Waters song "Rollin Stone." It was their producer Glyn Johns (introduced to them by the Beatles) that added the "g" to the end of "rollin." Mick Jagger even admitted in an interview that he didn't start moving around on stage until he saw James Brown. BYW, Glyn Johns is a great engineer and producer, ever hear of a group called the Eagles? He was also asked to master the box set CD collection for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. George Martin and Glyn Johns were both talented, but it was the groups that had the vision, ideas, and songs.
The Beatles were superior songwriters, they were more gifted overall and I love them but the Stones are my favourites. I wouldn't want to be without either of them.
I attended a Tears For Fears concert last night and decided to chat up my seatmate. We ended up talking a lot about 20th century music, and I found out he's a Stones fan whilst I am a solid Beatles gal. We decided you are typically on one side or the other, but couldn't exactly articulate *why* at that moment. I think for me personally, The Beatles have a sort of warmer charm with intriguing (mostly their later era), profound, and deeply varied lyrics along with a wide variety of musical exploration, while The Rolling Stones give me a consistent, grittier energy a la Aerosmith that I don't find as appealing. Fascinating to me that people typically fall into one camp or another. Guess it's like Pepsi vs. Coke...or cats vs. dogs...You can like both, but typically one has a slight edge depending on your tastes. Great topic & food for thought. Thanks, Professor! :)
Howard Stern once said if even Beatles had only one album, which is Rubber Soul, for his entire music career, they were still the best band ever. True, Beatles is in the league of their own.
The Beatles didn’t release any songs from Rubber Soul as singles. They instead released We Can Work it Out with Day Tripper as the B side which was a number one hit. Just wasn’t included on the album. There were also no singles released from Revolver, Sgt Peppers or the White Album.
On paper the Beatles would win most things but I dare anyone to sit down and listen to the 30 best songs of each of them and still choose the Beatles ! It’s so hard man but the stones once you understand them are impossible to beat and I’m a Beatles fan!
SO great...so very different. Beatles are tops because they changed everything. All over the map breaking down musical doors. Stones being the great, blues rock band. But really hard to compare the art, just enjoy it.
100 years from now people will still study and marvel and jam to every one of the records by The Beatles. They’ll marvel at the unbelievable growth and output The Beatles showed in just 7 short years. They’ll marvel at all of the unbelievable songwriting talent that was in the band and how The Beatles had THREE fantastic lead vocalists! I don’t think anybody is going to make a movie imagining how crazy it would be to wake up in a world where nobody else remembered the Rolling Stones.
For me it's Beatles all the way. They're the only band who's every song is so good that each individual song has an article on Wikipedia. Even the 'obscure' ones.. Even the unreleased songs has an individual article. Just goes to show that every bit that they released/recorded is significant. And to do it in less than 7 years before any of them reached 30.. They're also the one band where there is a high probability that people know each member's name. Most bands, unless you're a fan, you only know the name of the frontman.
The Beatles because of their inventive impact on music, they are my first love. I have learned to love an appreciate the Stones and they have many great songs.
@@Bernz66 The whole song Revolution is about attacking wrongheaded political views. Trump's whole platform is counter to the peace and love that The Beatles were about. If you just listen to the music and ignore the message, you fucked up.
Morgan Hyman and again..... that’s your perspective and interpretation of the Beatles songs.... “I want to hold your hand”? Political? Right..... music is subjective and is up to the listener to interpret it for themselves.... if it makes you anti-Trump, then so be it.... 🙄
You can’t really compere though. Different sounds and styles. Beatles are more pop, Stones are more rock. Personally I prefer the Stones overall, because I lean more to the rock genre. The Beatles have lots of songs I love, but not many that I have on repeat, whereas the Stones I can listen to all day.
I feel the same way. The Stones remain rock n roll and in some ways were more adventurous - can you imagine the Beatles recording Sister Morphine for example?
This isn't brought up nearly enough. Two completely different genres. The Beatles specialized in soft, slow pop rock (effective but a bit cheap, in my opinion), while the Stones were more of a pure, blues-inspired rock group. Calling The Beatles a rock band is a bit of a stretch.
The stones are the best bar band you'll ever experience and the beatles are the best lay down in bed, put the album on, put on the headphones and space out band you'll ever experience. Personally, I'll go with the best bar band.
Retarded opinion. Heater Skelter, Revolution, Expect for Me and My Monkey, Happiness is a Warm Gun, She’s so Heavy etc and etc and etc is not pop. RS don’t even close to the songs I just mentioned
The Beatles accomplished more in their one decade and evolved more than any other music act in history. They were never a great live act though and only toured during the earlier years with the screaming girls and all that. After that they were just a studio band. The Stones run between 68-72 with those four classic albums is pretty amazing. They are a great live act and the fact that they still tour in 2021 is nothing short of miraculous. So I say the Beatles as a studio act and the Stones as a live act. But the Stones basically are rock n roll. They are just more bad ass. When I think of a rock star I always immediately think of Mick and Keith. So...the Beatles had more of a cultural impact but the Stones are cooler if that is any sort of answer. R.I.P. Charlie Watts.
If the question is having a band on your side in a back alley knife fight you only need one band member. Keith Richards. He had famously used his knife to settle disagreements , like in 89 when Trump insisted to MC a concert against Keith's disapproval. The Don ran to an alley after he heard Kieth coming to discuss the situation. He also is pretty good at using his guitar as a weapon when a fan got past security . . The eternal "Street fighting man " Kieth. 😎
The Beatles - by far. And I don't like the Dean/Brando comparison because, yes, they broke up, but 3 of them went on to make exceptional music on their own. Together they were powerful. Separate they were powerful.
The only one who was exceptional after the Beatles.. was mcartney Harrison had one or two Lennon imagine could argue that ringo had better solo career at that point than Lennon. Though it would have been interesting to see what Lennon would have done as he seemed renergized and focus to be a musician again after double fantasy came out that was good start shame he was murdered and taken from us. Love both stones for more interesting over there long haul and especially live...best thing for the Beatles was probably calling it quits when they did...what came after might have diminished those great 8 years they gave us...I just enjoy what both have is
I have just finished reading A Hard Day's Write, of which compiles stories of how each and every song that came to be by the Beatles. I like The Stones fine and all, but why is this still even a debate? One of the songs was apparently given to The Stones by Lennon and McCartney as what they dubbed a throw-away. Might have been the one to break them through. If I recall correctly, it was a good hit for them too. John and Paul did this with many other artists of that day. Oh, and they weren't rivals as the media would have you believe either according to the book. Paul and maybe John would go to concerts and visit backstage at times.
No one thinks of or even knows the Stones version of the Beatles “I wannabe your man” when thinking of The Rolling Stones. It was a nice gesture by the Beatles to give the Stones the song, which made it to 25 or something but it’s nothing but a trivial footnote in their history. A terrible example of anything in the Beatles or Stones debate. The Stones made much more successful hits covering Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly’s NOT FADE AWAY and Howling Wolf’s RED ROOSTER or dozens of other artists before they wrote Satisfaction.
I think the Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones, Just because The Beatles evolved more. The changed as the world changed and the sound changed. That change in sound really helped change what music is today. From a soft ballad like Yesterday to more complex Strawberry Fields to Revolution and Let it Be. They really challenged what they can do with sounds and music to their full potential. While The Stones is just basic rock. Their sound is always the same, when they are on the radio, you know its The stones. However, The Beatles every song is different and leaves you wondering how they do that.
"Their sound is always the same..." Really? Compare the early Stones R&B cover tunes and blues numbers with the psychedelic "Between the Buttons", then compare those to the various styles on "Sticky Fingers", the folk tunes on "Beggar's Banquet" and finally the reggae and disco of the late 70's. Does "As Tears go by" or "Lady Jane" really sound the same as "Tumbling Dice" or "Undercover of the Night"? They are SOOO completely different it's hard to believe you're listening to the same band. Maybe you've heard the Stones doing certain songs and you didn't realize it was them...?
The Beatles had 3 great singers in their group, and all played multiple instruments. To do what they did in 8 years is astounding. They’re the GOATS, and it’s by a lot
3 great songwriters.. The four could sing . Keith Richard told to Paul Mac cartney.: you had 4 singers, we had only one. And mick said the four headed monster
I love em both and actually don't think they are similar in any way. (except they came from England & Andrew Oldham marketed the Stones as the anti-Beatles to try and grab headlines) In terms of albums, I think they measure up equally. If you compare the 3 periods 1) 63 to 65 (early), 2) 66 -67 Physchedelic 3) 68-70 Mature, I give the Stones the edge. Beatles had great pop songs in the early years but I personally think the rawness of the Stones songs are superior. Beatles edge out in Physchedelic period, but not by much and the Stones to me distance themselves from the Beatles during the mature phase and they kept on going. While the Beatles were no longer together, the Beatles were all working on solo work through the 70s and Paul and Ringo to this day are still cashing in on tours like the Stones with similar results and focus. I personally will take Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, Goats Head Soup, Some Girls and Tattoo You any day over All Things Must Pass, Band on the Run, Ram, Imagine, Plastic Ono Band and Ringo (their 5 best solo albums) Plus the Stones always have been a better live band and that's when a band is a band. Don't get me wrong, the Beatles are great, wrote great songs and were innovators in the studio, but to me the Stones get the edge. Personally I don't think the Stones are who should be compared to the Beatles. I think the Kinks would be a better comparison. And that one would be very tough to call in my view. Beatles clearly on song recognition but in terms of overall quality, the Kinks by a nose
I hate comparing apples and oranges. But when it comes to The Beatles, the choice is clear. Their artistic innovation, melodic genius and their status as icons of a generation, of an era, place them in a league above the others.. But then, The Stones remain standing. The gutsy grit of their musical energy has made them as compelling to present generations as they ever were. For this, they deserve a stellar place in rock history. Still, in my book, the Beatles will always dominate.
The Beatles, period. Best band ever. The Stones are the greatest touring band (sorry, Deadheads), but the studio work is the test over time, and The Beatles will win hands down.
Only McCartney the others were nothing special or interesting solo couple of hits. Heck you could argue ringo was better solo than Harrison and Lennon especially live
Whether you enjoy their music or not, it is indisputable that McCartney and Lennon were more influential than any other composers since Mozart. Every single rock genre since (except hip-hop and rap) owes its existence to groundwork laid by the Beatles.
You are right. Just because they were more influential than any other composers since Mozart does not mean their music was better. When was the last time you listened to Mozart 5th?
I disagree. This is just twaddle trotted out by people because they heard someone say it once. The beatles were also heavily influenced by elvis,chuck berry and Jimmy reed.
Once someone asked me why the Rolling Stones didn’t have a Hollywood walk of fame star, to which I told him that we don’t want tourists to step on our favourite band!
I don't think anybody gets even close to The Beatles... I've listened to a lot of Stones but I just can't get to like them. To me they have maybe 10 great songs, and all the rest are just sooo similar to each other that I really can't tell them apart. The Beatles were the innovators and the Stones were the followers, whether that was playing sitar like the Beatles or recording a psychedelic album like the Beatles. The Beatles had a message in what they were doing, which was to bring love to people through music. What was the Rolling Stone's message? I really don't know. They're both great rock bands, but I think the answer is pretty obvious... The Beatles are in their own league and there will never be any artist bigger than them
The stones message was sex drugs n rock n roll for whatever thats worth. Personally, i hate groups with a message. I dont need pop musicians telling me how to live or enlighten my world view from their houses in gated communities standing on top of piles of cash. Just be the back beat to the party and you'll be a good rock band.
The rolling stones songs all sound sooo similar? I can’t get through a single Beatles album without having the word love followed with a simple happy melody jammed down my throat
The Beatles were my first love, and I’ll always love them. But. The Stones is what I play most, like 10:1. Their distinctive sound is what appeals to me best, and I can’t even explain it, I’m not musically trained. Maybe it’s in the arrangements, but nobody else in rock has that sound. I love a huge variety of rock, over all decades. But the Stones are “it” for me! I saw them on their No Filter Tour, and man, if they come to my area again I’ll be there!
Paul McCartney. Had a great solo career but Harrison had a hit or two most of Lennon sucked solo other than imagine heck you coukd say ringo had a better solo career than Lennon..I will say this though shame that when he was murdered I did believe though I didn't care for many of the songs on it double fantasy I do think it was a good record and I think he was ready to be focused on being a musician again to create some good music again
The Stones never seemed to have any one album crammed full of great songs like the Beatles did. Love The Stones, but the Beatles changed the world and are responsible for the creation of entire sub genres of rock.
In Neil's biography Shakey, Neil and others talked about Dionysian (Rolling Stones) vs. Appolonian (Beatles) music, which I think is fair. Stones are the best Dionysian band ever, Beatles are the best Appolonian band ever. When you break it down like that, they really can both be the best
The Beatles. Their run from Rubber Soul to their breakup was incredible. Rolling Stones get a bump for longevity but I still give it to The Beatles. Also I find it interesting that you choose Banquet over Sticky Fingers.
I'm 72 and lived through the start of them both. I bought most of the 'sing'es & album's BUT tired of the Beatle's "POP MUSIC" quickly. I'm still listening to the Stone's. Just sorted them out and listening to their first recording's and they all sound great. Especially "LAST TIME" boy, that get's to you. The Stone's may not have been so Inventive BUT they have proved to be long lasting.... What happened to the Fab Four once they broke up ????? The two group's are very different. I think it would be faired to compare the Beach Boy's with the Beatle's.... The Stone's are ROCK the Beatle's POP. PS. The Beatle's did release some questionable song's.... Obli di for instance..... PPS. The Stone's Psycadelic Venture was a Disaster....
Im sure Im in the minority, but Im going with the Stones. I don't deny the Beatles greatness or influence, I just personally like the Stones better, and (Im sure Im going to catch heat for this one) I have heard a few musicians do versions of Beatles songs that were imo better than the original. Ive never heard anyone do a better version of a Stones song than the Stones. Tina Turner did a pretty good Jumpin Jack Flash, but thats all that comes to mind.
For me, I've had more connection with The Rolling Stones than I ever had with The Beatles. It really depends, but if I wanted to make a statement with music and I could only choose one of these two rock bands, I would automatically turn to The Rolling Stones. But besides that, when it comes to what psychedelic album was better in 1967 (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by The Beatles or Their Satanic Majesties Requests by The Rolling Stones), I would choose Their Satanic Majesties Requests by The Rolling Stones because they were thinking more on the psychedelic side and actually getting somewhere instead of being childish like The Beatles. However, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was a controversial record, it's my favorite album by The Beatles, and it's really good, but it doesn't compare to Their Satanic Majesties Requests by The Rolling Stones. Overall, I think that (between these two at least. Pink Floyd wasn't mentioned) The Rolling Stones is the best. In the end, it really depends on which band you like better. They are both amazing bands and they have made an influence on people all over the world since they started, but, like I've mentioned at the beginning of this comment, I've had more connection with The Rolling Stones than I ever had with The Beatles. I was born with a Rolling Stones birthmark (not literally, but metaphorically speaking).
Stones are the greatest rock band of all time but The Beatles are the greatest modern music artists of all time. No group or solo music artist really compares in any way and I don’t think a lot of people understand that..just do the research whilst listening to those 4 fellas and you might get it..
The Stones are a true great. The Beatles wrote history and prepared the way for genres that we now regard as mainstream. It’s an unfair comparison because their only commonality wad the 60s. The Beatles were exceptional and few really dispute that. Even those that do, struggle.
1969 I was 14 yrs old, and the Beatles were "The Sound"!! Bopping along trying to be cool!! Three years later the epiphone of rock descended on me from... ta daaa. The Rolling Stones!!! Been rocking ever since. I play the Beatles for my little grandaughters to sing along with.
STONES!!! I was a classic rock junkie growing up and I heard WAY more Rolling Stones late 60s/early 70s stuff over Beatles. Beatle was too pop for me. Yes I’m sure you could hear The Rolling Stones copying the sound of the Beatles on their first 2 or 3 records. But you could definitely hear the Stones develop more of their own sound in their late 60s stuff. They just had more groove in their stuff to me and seemed like I heard more and better guitar solos in their songs as well.
"Satisfaction" isn't the greatest rock song ever written, "Gimme Shelter" is. It defined the Sixties and still as haunting and applicable to current world as was fifty plus years ago, maybe more so
1. The Stones didn't write their own songs on their first few albums. The Beatles did. 2. The Beatles didn't put singles on albums, which was a very risky thing to do. They did it because they never wanted the listener to pay twice for the same song, and always wanted to be original. The Stones did. 3. The Beatles were always unique. Every song had something different. Eleanor Rigby has strings, Within You Without You has Eastern Instruments, Rain invented backwards music, In My Life has a sped up piano solo, I Will has a sung bassline, Penny Lane has a Picollo Trumpet solo, Tomorrow Never Knows has tape loops, Yesterday only features one member, I Feel Fine invented feedback music, etc. The Stones always played the same rock 'n' roll song over and over again, 60 years long. 4. The Beatles have practically invented genres: Pschydelic and Progessive Rock: Rain, She Said She Said, I'm Only Sleeping, Strawberry Fields, . Heavy Metal: Helter Skelter and I Want You (She's So Heavy). Eastern Rock: Norwegian Wood, Love You To, Within You Without You, The Inner Light). The Stones didn't. 5. The Beatles invented music videos. Paperback Writer, Help, I Feel Fine, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane and Something all have music videos. They were the first. 6. The Beatles are melodically superior. Songs like Eleanor Rigby, Penny Lane, Yesterday, She's Leaving Home, Blackbird, I Will, I've Just Seen A Face, Help, If I Needed Someone, Here, There And Everywhere and For No One all feature melodies superior over every Rolling Stones song ever recorded. The Beatles are better.
you are factually wrong on half the stuff you just said. The Beatles covered plenty of songs in their early days. And the real person to move artists to write their own songs was Bob Dylan. And the Stones singles weren't on their albums either. Not putting singles on albums wasn't an artistic decision but just a common business practice at the time. Also the Beatles didn't invent psychedelic music and weren't the first rock band to use strings. They also were not the first to do music videos. You obviously have a very limited knowledge of 60's rock. The Beatles for sure had better production values and sang better harmonies but that doesn't make them the better band.
@@hairharbor5080 Well, name one other band before the Beatles that used instrumentation and studio techniques like the Beatles did on Paperback Writer/Rain. Also name one other band before the Beatles that made music videos the way the Beatles did it with Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye, Help, Ticket To Ride, Paperback Writer, etc. Name one other band that used strings before the Beatles' Yesterday.
the Beatles were the ones that parents wanted their daughters to marry. Stones were the ones the daughters wanted to marry! The Rolling Stones built what came to be called a rock and roll attitude, instrumentalists with more refined technique and stage presence.
I’ve always hated this question! Haha! I’m a big BEATLES fan but I can’t say either is better than the other. I like to ignore this specific question. Moving on here......
Completely depends on my mood atm… Some days the Stones, some days the Beatles, And of course on many days Led Zeppelin, Other days the Doors, Still on other days, Steely Dan, And so on and so on… What I can say is that I want to hear them all at some point. Because they are all great!
The Beatles have about 200 classic tracks. The Stones have maybe 20. Jagger frightened to stop touring, he knows the Stones music will just fade away. While the Beatles will still be played till the end of time.
I don't think worried stones music will fade away. It be around for many years I don't remember anyone when I was younger playing Beatles tapes or albums at parties they were considered a bubble gum band like the monkees. Though obviously better than monkees..but the stones hot rocks was worn out along with zeppelin 4..... plus live the Beatles just sucked..I have seen McCartney live he good nowhere near the energy or excitement of a stones show...I love both bands stones for me obviously nothing wrong with the Beatles
@@jamesflores9155 The Stones were a blues cover band and still doing the same thing. Got to keep performing, Jagger knows the stones will be forgot about in 5years. The Beatles gave the Stones their first big hit. The Beatles did more for music in 8years than the Stones and Led Zeppelin could do in 2 life times. The Beatles were playing to packed out stadiums while the Stones were still doing dance halls. The Beatles are still out selling the Stones and will continue to do so for hundreds of years to come. Everything the Stones did the Beatles did first. There was the Beatles, everyone after that were just cover band. Kurt Cobine
The Greatest Rock and Roll band in the WORLD 🌎 Ladies and Gentlemen.. The Rolling Stones!!! 🙌🏽🤘👏🏽 The media hypes the Beatles way too much. I realize the Beatles had their place and time but when you get right down to it … come on! ..Obviously it’s The Rolling Stones. 🤘🤘🤘
This channel and seeing the great conversation on music in the comments is what is RUclips at its best. Great content from you Doc, I just love music,and someone like you guys keeping this great kinda music alive.
The Beatles is the most popular band of all time and it is very hard to talk about them in a honest fashion. Yes, they outsold everyone. Yes, they inspired a huge generation (and others in the future) and yes, they were more versitalie... But is everything THAT great? Is everything as great as Yesterday, A Day in the Life or Something? I really don't think so. I think many of their songs have a certain quality... Maybe vocals or bas but are otherwise quite forgettable. Same with The Rolling Stones. They have done SO MUCH and quite much is mediocre but at the end of the day.. I reach for The Rolling Stones more often and a top 10 songs from each band? I probably choose The Rolling Stones as well.
The Beatles were super consistent where almost every song on an album was worthy of being a single (at least until the bloat of the White Album with Revolution #9 and some other too experimental for their own good songs), and The Rolling Stones had a more scattershot throw the $h!t at the wall and see what sticks approach (The Stones really didn’t have solid records in my opinion until Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street); but when something did stick for The Stones, it typically hit & rocked harder than The Beatles. Very different approaches, and I have a playlist with my favorite songs by both bands that I love to just set to random.
I have never been a Beetles fan. On their individually I like them. As a young kid, I liked the the Rolling Stones more, but I believe that the Animals, Herman's Hermits were equal to the Beetles but were not as hyped in the media as much. As to the 60's and early 70's CCR spoke more of the American people's thinking and the times. The Beetles writing skills were great. But hey I am different, I like Bob Dylan's songs but not his singing except for a couple of songs. I do like their White album. Each to their own.
Beatles. The Stones may have lasted longer but their quality of work for years has been average. People always talk about the Beatles innovations and how they changed Rock, I've never heard the Stones spoken of in that way. That said the Stones have a large body that stays in time, but it's all Beatles.
Here is my take, In a back alley fight? think im gonna step on the side of the Stones ( i think J,P,G&R are gonna run anyway ) musically? for me the Beatles I put ahead by leaps and bounds together and then individually also, except maybe Ringo (but I have found a new respect for Stars drumming!) On stage as a singer in a rock & roll band? I would want to sing with my same day, birthday brother Mic of the Stones. For the sure fact that vocally I think I look pretty good and I dont think I would with Paul. I feel like that also would be a much easier gig! (but Id hate myself in the morning) Honestly Im one of those people that never got the Stones appeal? dont get me wrong, they got some hits but those songs just feel simple to me! The complexity of what the Beatles put together just blows my mind time and time again.
Just to throw a little wrench into your Thinking. The Beatles used to get into fights all the time and wore the leather jackets and jeans. They only wore the shirt and ties as they made it because Brian Epstein wanted them to look professional. Also I loved John Lennon’s voice. I personally felt he was a better singer than mick. Mick didn’t play guitar so he had to dance like a goofball lol
@@DNGINFORMANT Add to that, according to Wikipedia at least, the childhood friends Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met again at Dartford train station 1961, having been separated by families moving. By then, the Beatles had been playing Reeperbahn clubs in Hamburg for a year. On the other hand, more of the Stones are alive right now, so if I needed assistance in that back alley, I guess I would go for the strolling bones. But if I on the other hand needed ... Help!
The Beatles are the World's Greatest Pop Band. The Stones are the World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band. Half of The Beatles are dead. The Stones are still touring (well, would be except for Covid).
I enjoy a lot of Beatles songs, but I prefer the Rolling Stones for those deep pocket, hypnotic rhythms filled with grooves and riffs that were likewise raw and sophisticated with a bite of menace mixed with memorable hooks and densely layered overdubs of piano and organ, slide, acoustic, sitar, solo and sax. They also stripped the sound clean of gimmicks and got down into the gritty depths of the street or the down home country rock sound, while contrasting this with moments of tenderness and transcendence often mixed with biting tongue and cheek irony in the ballads. I actually like their singing a lot too with that rawer idiosyncratic sense of enunciation that gave it an authenticity and wit that was easier to identify with and which Mick and even Keith pulled off so marvelously like they were creating a rock and roll, country, blues, and funk archetype, and I think they sounded great harmonizing together.
I think Bill Wyman said it best when he was asked which band was best.
"In the studio, the Beatles. On stage, the Rolling Stones"
Yeah cuz the beatles quit touring so thats kind of a dig 😆
That’s a fair assessment
Hmmm, every live performance of the Stones I've ever seen, they are weak.
@@BeatlesCentricUniverse you’ve clearly never listened to get yer ya yas out lol
The Beatles were never good live I saw McCartney solo good but nothing great. Stones live sound energy excitement..the Beatles biggest advantage was George Martin there records were recorded so well in that era sound like they coukd have been recorded yesterday..Andrew loog holdham sucked as a producer. If the stones had him as there producer wouldn't have been close..the stones sounded even better once Jimmy Miller became there producer
john entwistle said that the beatles were in a league of their own & that his band & the others jockeyed for 2nd place.
I preferred The Beatles until 1967. Then I heard "Letˋs Spend The Night Together" without knowing the bandˋ s name. I felt right away that this kind of music suited my temperament better. The fascination has continued for the last sixty years.
I enjoyed the Beatles, particularly when I first started getting into music, and I still admire their songwriting skills. But they were very much of their time. On the other hand, the Rolling Stones have much deeper roots going way back into blues, soul, funk, and country, and later into reggae. Stones music feels more part of a rich musical continuum. That’s one reason why I prefer them.
Plus the Stones seem like a real band - each member knowing their place but improvising and playing off each other on stage in ways the Beatles never did, or rarely got the chance to. You can tell the Rolling Stones still get a lot of joy from playing together.
Two very different bands. We had the luxury of enjoying both.
“The Stones might have actually had the edge.” Uh, no... he was in U2.
Buh dum chuh...
My favorite band is the original Rolling Stones with Brian Jones. I just love their early blues roots and the Jagger/Richards compositions like "The Last Time", "Satisfaction", Get Off Of My Cloud", "Paint It Black" hit me harder than the Beatles - it's a personal preference to say who's music you like more.
The Stones were the pioneers of blues/rock, which became a big sound in rock music with other bands as well. The Stones had the multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones who added a lot of color to the Stones sound in the 1960s by playing so many different instruments like guitar, harmonica, mountain dulcimer, marimbas, recorder, Indian sitar, mellotron, concert harp, saxophone, autoharp, with amazing success. If you want to go by who made the biggest impact in music it's the Beatles. They sold more records than the Stones, they inspired more people to write songs (Bob Dylan was a big part of this as well), and the Beatles were more experimental in the studio - they were one of the first well-known bands to use the recording studio as though it was an instrument itself. The Beatles went through a lot of different musical changes and were able to keep their fan base and have massive commercial success doing it, whereas other artists lose their fan base when they become more experimental, which is what happened to the Stones with Their Satanic (although I love it), even hardcore Beach Boys fans were disappointed with Pet Sounds at the time although both albums are now favorites. Also, if you are going to compare the two bands, which I don't think you can, you have to cut it off in 1970 when the Beatles broke up. It's not fair to add number one album and singles by the Stones to the list after the Beatles disbanded.
To me it's a matter of personal preference as to who's music is better, but the Beatles were the biggest phenomenon in music history and they will always be the winner. With that being said, the Stones are the best band I've ever heard.
Yes your 1,000,000% correct👍👍❤️👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The Beatles for me. The songwriting of Lennon & McCartney is legendary 🎶
It would probably suggest one of two things, one you weren’t around in the 60s or two,if you were, you were a prepubescent schoolgirl.
@@blackvegetable563 chill
The Beatles is the greatest rock band of all time. The Rolling Stones are their peers. I guess that sums it up for me, lol. I know and cherish the entire catalog of The Beatles music. I know a dozen or so Stones songs, a handful of which I really like. In other words, this is not much of a contest in my mind...
The Beatles all the way. They were more eclectic, more adventurous, more trailblazing, more groundbreaking, more EVERYTHING! Satisfaction is way overrated. Oh, and the Stones are not the original band that started in 1964. Great analogy with Dean and Brando, never thought of it that way. Beatles forever!
The 60’s era Rolling Stones win for me. Why? Paint It Black, Gimme Shelter, Under My Thumb, Sympathy For The Devil, She’s A Rainbow, Get Off Of My Cloud, Jumpin’ Jack Flash, You Can’t Always Get What You Want, etc...that’s why.
The 60s era Beatles win for me. why? please please me, twist and shout, i want to hold your hand, yesterday, i feel fine, ticket to ride, paper back writer, taxman, Sgt. peppers lonely hearts club band, DAY IN THE LIFE, strawberry fields forever, hello goodbye, i am the walrus, come together, penny lane, while my guitar gently weeps, somethings, here comes the sun, in my life, ob la di ob la da, birthday, dont let me down, dig a pony, hey jude, let it be, get back, revolution, ect, i could go on forever.... thats why
@@kae4046 octopus's garden, for the benefit of mr kite, girl, michelle, all you need is love, lucy in the sky with diamonds..
@Mike Barooshian The Beatles have played in stadiums. In Shea Stadium or Candlestick Park, just to name a few. Breaking up in 1970 was the right thing to do for them. If they had continued, like the Rolling Stones did, things wouldn't go as well as they had gone. Their relationships were diminishing and if they had continued, their legacy would slowly have been bitten away by a bad album. They stopped just at the right moment for their legacy to become legendary, for them to grow out into the genius, mystic, superstars; the way we know them today. The Rolling Stones made the mistake to continue; after 1972 they never made a good album again and their legacy slowly began to crumble underneath that. It's about time they stop.
The Beatles: Please, Please Me, TWIST AND SHOUT, SHE LOVES YOU, From Me To You, I WANT TO HOLD YOUR HAND This Boy, It Won't Be Long, All I've Got To Do, ALL MY LOVING, A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, If I Fell, AND I LOVE HER, Can't Buy Me Love, Anytime At All, Things We Said Today, You Can't Do That, I'll Be Back, I Feel Fine, No Reply, I'm A Loser, I'll Follow The Sun, Eight Days A Week, Every Little Thing, What You're Doing, HELP! TICKET TO RIDE, YESTERDAY, I've Just Seen A Face, Day Tripper, We Can Work It Out, NORWEGIAN WOOD, NOWHERE MAN, Think For Yourself, The Word, MICHELLE, Girl, IN MY LIFE, Wait, If I Needed Someone, Paperback Writer, Rain, Taxman, ELEANOR RIGBY, I'm Only Sleeping, HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE, YELLOW SUBMARINE, She Said She Said, And Your Bird Can Sing, Got To Get You Into My Life, TOMORROW NEVER KNOWS, STRAWBERRY FIELDS FOREVER, PENNY LANE, Sgt. Pepper, WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM MY FRIENDS, LUCY IN THE SKY WITH DIAMONDS, Getting Better, Fixing A Hole, She's Leaving Home, Within You Without You, A DAY IN THE LIFE, THE FOOL ON THE HILL, I AM THE WALRUS, ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE, Lady Madonna, Back In The U.S.S.R, DEAR PRUDENCE, WHILE MY GUITAR GENTLY WEEPS, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, BLACKBIRD, Martha My Dear, I Will, Julia, Yer Blues, Mother Nature's Son, Hey Bulldog, COME TOGETHER, SOMETHING, Oh Darling, I WANT YOU (SHE'S SO HEAVY), HERE COMES THE SUN, Because, ABBEY ROAD MEDLEY, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE, LET IT BE, THE LONG AND WINDING ROAD, Get Back, Free As A Bird, Real Love.
Every song I just mentioned is better, more beautiful and melodic then every song you named.
@@tyrannosauruszeppelin2205 While I appreciate your enthusiasm, its a bit uneducated. Some Girls (1978) and Tatto You ( 1981) are great albums. And the rest of the 70s era albums each produced at least one single that still gets airplay today. " Angie" (1973) " Its Only Rock n Roll" (1974) " Fool to Cry" ( 1976) "Emotional Rescue" (1979). Cmon
The Beatles have a song for every single mood. I've never cried over or because of a Stones song, for example. The Stones just don't resonate with me the same way as the Beatles. For me personally, this was an easy choice: The Beatles all the way.
Beatles sang she loved you , I wanna hold your hand lol .. stones sang under my thumb , mothers litttle helper etc
Lets go Brandon!
Probably because you’ve not heard, Wild Horses, till the next time we say goodbye & time waits for no one, check them out & get back to me
The Beatles genuinely transformed music in a profound way, and not just once. They kept doing it over and over, album after album. They helped to transform modern culture, too, although that's a different discussion. The Rolling Stones are gifted, yes, among the greats, certainly, but really, no one artist or group has had the impact the Beatles had, before or since in the modern era.
Course I’d forgotten those classics Maxwells silver hammer & Yellow Submarine.
ROLLING STONES, of course.
I's Only Rock & Roll, But I LOVE IT.
I give the edge to the Beatles on musical quality. They were a band that evolved musically..(almost hard to believe that "She loves you" and "Come Together" were recorded by the same group) and they werent afraid to experiment.
I give the Stones an edge on energy and fun. Certainly they were a better concert act than the Beatles...but thats almost not fair considering the Beatles played their last concert for a paying audience in 1966.
A little over 30 years ago...i saw the Stones live in Oakland(last tour with Bill Wyman) And 6 months later I saw McCartney live in Berkeley.(1/2 of the set was Beatles tunes)
While I LOVED hearing Paul do all those great Beatles songs inclding Elenor Rigby, Let it Be, long and winding Road, and yesterday to name but a few...
The Stones concert is the best rock show i have ever seen PERIOD. They played 2 1/2 hours without an intermission and blew the Oakland Coliseum AWAY! Not just the great tunes...but the energy and showmanship of Mick and Keith
Agree seen the stones in 89 and McCartney in 90 both great shows but the stones way better live great energy and songs...seen the stones many times since 89. .94 97,99,03 06 06 13 19..every time a great show
The Beatles have the larger repertoire of truly exquisite songs, but the Stones are incomparable giants in their own right...The Fab Four's got the edge but Stones got that Passion
The Beatles had a classically-trained member pretending to be merely a producer (George Martin). That was their biggest edge over the competition.
They also had two bona-fida geniuses, whereas the Stones had only one, and he died.
Hey I'm classically proficient and I write rock songs too, plus I have a better command of melody than the beatles I do it all myself I pale in no comparison.
And Lennon and McCartney, oh and Harrison all being ridiculously good songwriters, surely.
The Rolling Stones are only mimicking Black Rhythm and Blues Artist even getting their name from the Muddy Waters song "Rollin Stone." It was their producer Glyn Johns (introduced to them by the Beatles) that added the "g" to the end of "rollin." Mick Jagger even admitted in an interview that he didn't start moving around on stage until he saw James Brown. BYW, Glyn Johns is a great engineer and producer, ever hear of a group called the Eagles? He was also asked to master the box set CD collection for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones. George Martin and Glyn Johns were both talented, but it was the groups that had the vision, ideas, and songs.
Stones. All day. Every day.
1963-1967 it's the Beatles. 1968 - 1970 it's the Stones. "Beggars Banquet" left the Beatles in the rear view mirror.
The Beatles were superior songwriters, they were more gifted overall and I love them but the Stones are my favourites. I wouldn't want to be without either of them.
So true.
nonsense beatles were pop song writers not deep like stones
@@cameronpickard7456 can’t tell if you’re joking 🤣
@@cameronpickard7456 Name one deep song the stones wrote?
@@davidsonofyisrael4469 wow
beatles they are undescribably awesome
I attended a Tears For Fears concert last night and decided to chat up my seatmate. We ended up talking a lot about 20th century music, and I found out he's a Stones fan whilst I am a solid Beatles gal. We decided you are typically on one side or the other, but couldn't exactly articulate *why* at that moment. I think for me personally, The Beatles have a sort of warmer charm with intriguing (mostly their later era), profound, and deeply varied lyrics along with a wide variety of musical exploration, while The Rolling Stones give me a consistent, grittier energy a la Aerosmith that I don't find as appealing. Fascinating to me that people typically fall into one camp or another. Guess it's like Pepsi vs. Coke...or cats vs. dogs...You can like both, but typically one has a slight edge depending on your tastes.
Great topic & food for thought. Thanks, Professor! :)
I prefer the stones but you said it perfectly on why we choose....I enjoy both but we have a reasons one over the other
Howard Stern once said if even Beatles had only one album, which is Rubber Soul, for his entire music career, they were still the best band ever.
True, Beatles is in the league of their own.
Love this!
What a stupid comment but it's Howard so...
Rubber Soul? No hits? Sorry but no, Rubber Soul, let alone any album, could make a band the greatest on its own.
The Beatles didn’t release any songs from Rubber Soul as singles. They instead released We Can Work it Out with Day Tripper as the B side which was a number one hit. Just wasn’t included on the album.
There were also no singles released from Revolver, Sgt Peppers or the White Album.
🤣😂🤣😂🤣 Yeah, because that dirtbag is an authority on anything.
On paper the Beatles would win most things but I dare anyone to sit down and listen to the 30 best songs of each of them and still choose the Beatles ! It’s so hard man but the stones once you understand them are impossible to beat and I’m a Beatles fan!
SO great...so very different. Beatles are tops because they changed everything. All over the map breaking down musical doors. Stones being the great, blues rock band. But really hard to compare the art, just enjoy it.
The Beatles want to "Hold your hand". The Stones want to take it much further.
100 years from now people will still study and marvel and jam to every one of the records by The Beatles.
They’ll marvel at the unbelievable growth and output The Beatles showed in just 7 short years. They’ll marvel at all of the unbelievable songwriting talent that was in the band and how The Beatles had THREE fantastic lead vocalists!
I don’t think anybody is going to make a movie imagining how crazy it would be to wake up in a world where nobody else remembered the Rolling Stones.
For me it's Beatles all the way. They're the only band who's every song is so good that each individual song has an article on Wikipedia. Even the 'obscure' ones.. Even the unreleased songs has an individual article. Just goes to show that every bit that they released/recorded is significant. And to do it in less than 7 years before any of them reached 30.. They're also the one band where there is a high probability that people know each member's name. Most bands, unless you're a fan, you only know the name of the frontman.
Love the Beatles but the Stones are more up my alley.
The Beatles because of their inventive impact on music, they are my first love. I have learned to love an appreciate the Stones and they have many great songs.
You love The Beatles but you support Trump? Sounds like you my have never listened to any of their lyrics.
Morgan Hyman so you attack people on their political views? You must not really listen to any of the Beatles lyrics.... this is about music....
@@Bernz66 The whole song Revolution is about attacking wrongheaded political views. Trump's whole platform is counter to the peace and love that The Beatles were about. If you just listen to the music and ignore the message, you fucked up.
Morgan Hyman and again..... that’s your perspective and interpretation of the Beatles songs.... “I want to hold your hand”? Political? Right..... music is subjective and is up to the listener to interpret it for themselves.... if it makes you anti-Trump, then so be it.... 🙄
@@morganhymancomedy Obviously you can't read the plain lyrical content of Revolution. Democrats are the party of Mao.
You can’t really compere though. Different sounds and styles. Beatles are more pop, Stones are more rock.
Personally I prefer the Stones overall, because I lean more to the rock genre. The Beatles have lots of songs I love, but not many that I have on repeat, whereas the Stones I can listen to all day.
I feel the same way. The Stones remain rock n roll and in some ways were more adventurous - can you imagine the Beatles recording Sister Morphine for example?
This isn't brought up nearly enough. Two completely different genres. The Beatles specialized in soft, slow pop rock (effective but a bit cheap, in my opinion), while the Stones were more of a pure, blues-inspired rock group. Calling The Beatles a rock band is a bit of a stretch.
@@gagemassey3056 u are drugged?
@@MiltonMachado0 No, he's right!
When I updated to cd's, there was no beatles in it. You could say I moved on, or grew up. I do have every Stones album they made. R.I.P Dear Charley.
The stones are the best bar band you'll ever experience and the beatles are the best lay down in bed, put the album on, put on the headphones and space out band you'll ever experience. Personally, I'll go with the best bar band.
The Rolling Stones = Rock The Beatles = Pop That's my opinion.
well said
Yes I agree. I find the beatles "lightweight".
Retarded opinion. Heater Skelter, Revolution, Expect for Me and My Monkey, Happiness is a Warm Gun, She’s so Heavy etc and etc and etc is not pop. RS don’t even close to the songs I just mentioned
No! The Rolling Stones=Rock And Roll!!!!!!!!!!!
The Beatles=Rock!!!
Not when Helter Skelter exists
I actually prefer the Rolling Stones output slightly over their peak years, but obviously the Beatles were the more influential band
The Beatles accomplished more in their one decade and evolved more than any other music act in history.
They were never a great live act though and only toured during the earlier years with the screaming girls and all that. After that they were just a studio band.
The Stones run between 68-72 with those four classic albums is pretty amazing. They are a great live act and the fact that they still tour in 2021 is nothing short of miraculous.
So I say the Beatles as a studio act and the Stones as a live act. But the Stones basically are rock n roll. They are just more bad ass. When I think of a rock star I always immediately think of Mick and Keith.
So...the Beatles had more of a cultural impact but the Stones are cooler if that is any sort of answer.
R.I.P. Charlie Watts.
If the question is having a band on your side in a back alley knife fight you only need one band member. Keith Richards. He had famously used his knife to settle disagreements , like in 89 when Trump insisted to MC a concert against Keith's disapproval. The Don ran to an alley after he heard Kieth coming to discuss the situation. He also is pretty good at using his guitar as a weapon when a fan got past security . . The eternal "Street fighting man " Kieth. 😎
Beatles all day. I-tunes commercial said it best. The band that changed everything.
The Beatles - by far. And I don't like the Dean/Brando comparison because, yes, they broke up, but 3 of them went on to make exceptional music on their own. Together they were powerful. Separate they were powerful.
The only one who was exceptional after the Beatles.. was mcartney Harrison had one or two Lennon imagine could argue that ringo had better solo career at that point than Lennon. Though it would have been interesting to see what Lennon would have done as he seemed renergized and focus to be a musician again after double fantasy came out that was good start shame he was murdered and taken from us. Love both stones for more interesting over there long haul and especially live...best thing for the Beatles was probably calling it quits when they did...what came after might have diminished those great 8 years they gave us...I just enjoy what both have is
I have just finished reading A Hard Day's Write, of which compiles stories of how each and every song that came to be by the Beatles. I like The Stones fine and all, but why is this still even a debate? One of the songs was apparently given to The Stones by Lennon and McCartney as what they dubbed a throw-away. Might have been the one to break them through. If I recall correctly, it was a good hit for them too. John and Paul did this with many other artists of that day.
Oh, and they weren't rivals as the media would have you believe either according to the book. Paul and maybe John would go to concerts and visit backstage at times.
No one thinks of or even knows the Stones version of the Beatles “I wannabe your man” when thinking of The Rolling Stones. It was a nice gesture by the Beatles to give the Stones the song, which made it to 25 or something but it’s nothing but a trivial footnote in their history. A terrible example of anything in the Beatles or Stones debate. The Stones made much more successful hits covering Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly’s NOT FADE AWAY and Howling Wolf’s RED ROOSTER or dozens of other artists before they wrote Satisfaction.
All I can tell you is that the Stones are in much heavier rotation on my playlists. The Beatles are there, but don’t get played much.
I think the Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones, Just because The Beatles evolved more. The changed as the world changed and the sound changed. That change in sound really helped change what music is today. From a soft ballad like Yesterday to more complex Strawberry Fields to Revolution and Let it Be. They really challenged what they can do with sounds and music to their full potential. While The Stones is just basic rock. Their sound is always the same, when they are on the radio, you know its The stones. However, The Beatles every song is different and leaves you wondering how they do that.
"Their sound is always the same..."
Really? Compare the early Stones R&B cover tunes and blues numbers with the psychedelic "Between the Buttons", then compare those to the various styles on "Sticky Fingers", the folk tunes on "Beggar's Banquet" and finally the reggae and disco of the late 70's. Does "As Tears go by" or "Lady Jane" really sound the same as "Tumbling Dice" or "Undercover of the Night"?
They are SOOO completely different it's hard to believe you're listening to the same band. Maybe you've heard the Stones doing certain songs and you didn't realize it was them...?
To me its just the opposite , every Beatles song one exection, Yellow Submarine, sounds the same ....
The Stones have evolved over nearly 60 years ...
The Beatles had 3 great singers in their group, and all played multiple instruments. To do what they did in 8 years is astounding. They’re the GOATS, and it’s by a lot
3 great songwriters.. The four could sing . Keith Richard told to Paul Mac cartney.: you had 4 singers, we had only one. And mick said the four headed monster
I love em both and actually don't think they are similar in any way. (except they came from England & Andrew Oldham marketed the Stones as the anti-Beatles to try and grab headlines) In terms of albums, I think they measure up equally. If you compare the 3 periods 1) 63 to 65 (early), 2) 66 -67 Physchedelic 3) 68-70 Mature, I give the Stones the edge. Beatles had great pop songs in the early years but I personally think the rawness of the Stones songs are superior. Beatles edge out in Physchedelic period, but not by much and the Stones to me distance themselves from the Beatles during the mature phase and they kept on going. While the Beatles were no longer together, the Beatles were all working on solo work through the 70s and Paul and Ringo to this day are still cashing in on tours like the Stones with similar results and focus. I personally will take Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street, Goats Head Soup, Some Girls and Tattoo You any day over All Things Must Pass, Band on the Run, Ram, Imagine, Plastic Ono Band and Ringo (their 5 best solo albums) Plus the Stones always have been a better live band and that's when a band is a band. Don't get me wrong, the Beatles are great, wrote great songs and were innovators in the studio, but to me the Stones get the edge. Personally I don't think the Stones are who should be compared to the Beatles. I think the Kinks would be a better comparison. And that one would be very tough to call in my view. Beatles clearly on song recognition but in terms of overall quality, the Kinks by a nose
I hate comparing apples and oranges. But when it comes to The Beatles, the choice is clear. Their artistic innovation, melodic genius and their status as icons of a generation, of an era, place them in a league above the others.. But then, The Stones remain standing. The gutsy grit of their musical energy has made them as compelling to present generations as they ever were. For this, they deserve a stellar place in rock history. Still, in my book, the Beatles will always dominate.
The Beatles, period. Best band ever. The Stones are the greatest touring band (sorry, Deadheads), but the studio work is the test over time, and The Beatles will win hands down.
The Stones.
Beatles, not even a contest.
😊😊👏
The stones.
I think if your add the solo careers of each of the Beatles there is really no question in any category: The Beatles
Only McCartney the others were nothing special or interesting solo couple of hits. Heck you could argue ringo was better solo than Harrison and Lennon especially live
Whether you enjoy their music or not, it is indisputable that McCartney and Lennon were more influential than any other composers since Mozart. Every single rock genre since (except hip-hop and rap) owes its existence to groundwork laid by the Beatles.
I disagree. We have the Velvet Underground and the Kinks to thank for that
@@williamberry2351 Chuck Berry as well
@@southsider3542 agreed
You are right. Just because they were more influential than any other composers since Mozart does not mean their music was better. When was the last time you listened to Mozart 5th?
I disagree. This is just twaddle trotted out by people because they heard someone say it once. The beatles were also heavily influenced by elvis,chuck berry and Jimmy reed.
Once someone asked me why the Rolling Stones didn’t have a Hollywood walk of fame star, to which I told him that we don’t want tourists to step on our favourite band!
You're d@mn right The Stones have the edge. You think they have it, because you're right.
I don't think anybody gets even close to The Beatles... I've listened to a lot of Stones but I just can't get to like them. To me they have maybe 10 great songs, and all the rest are just sooo similar to each other that I really can't tell them apart. The Beatles were the innovators and the Stones were the followers, whether that was playing sitar like the Beatles or recording a psychedelic album like the Beatles. The Beatles had a message in what they were doing, which was to bring love to people through music. What was the Rolling Stone's message? I really don't know. They're both great rock bands, but I think the answer is pretty obvious... The Beatles are in their own league and there will never be any artist bigger than them
The stones message was sex drugs n rock n roll for whatever thats worth. Personally, i hate groups with a message. I dont need pop musicians telling me how to live or enlighten my world view from their houses in gated communities standing on top of piles of cash. Just be the back beat to the party and you'll be a good rock band.
The rolling stones songs all sound sooo similar? I can’t get through a single Beatles album without having the word love followed with a simple happy melody jammed down my throat
@@urmom5885 If you don't like them then don't listen to them🤷Keep your throat safe
@@urmom5885 Have you White Album or any full LP after Rubber Soul.
ROLLING STONES, of course.
I's Only Rock & Roll, But I LOVE IT.
Got to go with the Beatles I grew up listening to both but always just loved the Beatles even when I thought I was too cool for either of them
I love the stone but love your comment. That's awesome
I grew up with both. The question is who do you listen to today? 100% Stones!
The Beatles were my first love, and I’ll always love them. But. The Stones is what I play most, like 10:1. Their distinctive sound is what appeals to me best, and I can’t even explain it, I’m not musically trained. Maybe it’s in the arrangements, but nobody else in rock has that sound. I love a huge variety of rock, over all decades. But the Stones are “it” for me! I saw them on their No Filter Tour, and man, if they come to my area again I’ll be there!
Beatles.Multiple songwriters and singers bringing different styles. Plus the Beatles members has very successful solo careers as well.
Paul McCartney. Had a great solo career but Harrison had a hit or two most of Lennon sucked solo other than imagine heck you coukd say ringo had a better solo career than Lennon..I will say this though shame that when he was murdered I did believe though I didn't care for many of the songs on it double fantasy I do think it was a good record and I think he was ready to be focused on being a musician again to create some good music again
Years ago I would say Beatles without hesitation, but started really appreciating the Stones, especially the Jimmy Miller run, beggars banquet-exile
Exactly the sheep always say the Beatles
The Stones never seemed to have any one album crammed full of great songs like the Beatles did. Love The Stones, but the Beatles changed the world and are responsible for the creation of entire sub genres of rock.
Like what?
@@warager4753 Heavy metal, doom metal, psychedelic rock, acid rock, and electronic music
@@bluepeng8895 Not really nuts about any of those but I know enough not to credit the Beatles for their creation.
In Neil's biography Shakey, Neil and others talked about Dionysian (Rolling Stones) vs. Appolonian (Beatles) music, which I think is fair. Stones are the best Dionysian band ever, Beatles are the best Appolonian band ever. When you break it down like that, they really can both be the best
The Beatles. Their run from Rubber Soul to their breakup was incredible. Rolling Stones get a bump for longevity but I still give it to The Beatles. Also I find it interesting that you choose Banquet over Sticky Fingers.
I'm 72 and lived through the start of them both. I bought most of the 'sing'es & album's BUT tired of the Beatle's "POP MUSIC" quickly. I'm still listening to the Stone's. Just sorted them out and listening to their first recording's and they all sound great. Especially "LAST TIME" boy, that get's to you. The Stone's may not have been so Inventive BUT they have proved to be long lasting.... What happened to the Fab Four once they broke up ????? The two group's are very different. I think it would be faired to compare the Beach Boy's with the Beatle's.... The Stone's are ROCK the Beatle's POP. PS. The Beatle's did release some questionable song's.... Obli di for instance..... PPS. The Stone's Psycadelic Venture was a Disaster....
Beatles for me but really cant compare, they are just different and both wonderful!
Im sure Im in the minority, but Im going with the Stones. I don't deny the Beatles greatness or influence, I just personally like the Stones better, and (Im sure Im going to catch heat for this one) I have heard a few musicians do versions of Beatles songs that were imo better than the original. Ive never heard anyone do a better version of a Stones song than the Stones. Tina Turner did a pretty good Jumpin Jack Flash, but thats all that comes to mind.
For me, I've had more connection with The Rolling Stones than I ever had with The Beatles. It really depends, but if I wanted to make a statement with music and I could only choose one of these two rock bands, I would automatically turn to The Rolling Stones. But besides that, when it comes to what psychedelic album was better in 1967 (Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band by The Beatles or Their Satanic Majesties Requests by The Rolling Stones), I would choose Their Satanic Majesties Requests by The Rolling Stones because they were thinking more on the psychedelic side and actually getting somewhere instead of being childish like The Beatles. However, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band was a controversial record, it's my favorite album by The Beatles, and it's really good, but it doesn't compare to Their Satanic Majesties Requests by The Rolling Stones. Overall, I think that (between these two at least. Pink Floyd wasn't mentioned) The Rolling Stones is the best. In the end, it really depends on which band you like better. They are both amazing bands and they have made an influence on people all over the world since they started, but, like I've mentioned at the beginning of this comment, I've had more connection with The Rolling Stones than I ever had with The Beatles. I was born with a Rolling Stones birthmark (not literally, but metaphorically speaking).
I can accept that the Beatles are better. I still prefer the Stones, but I can totally accept the truth.
Beatles for sure
Brigdes to Babylon and A Bigger Bang are The One of The Greatest Rock`n`Roll albums of all time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Stones are the greatest rock band of all time but The Beatles are the greatest modern music artists of all time. No group or solo music artist really compares in any way and I don’t think a lot of people understand that..just do the research whilst listening to those 4 fellas and you might get it..
Love the Beatles...... but I also love the Stones....... I would pick the Beatles ...... Helter Scelter?
The Stones are a true great. The Beatles wrote history and prepared the way for genres that we now regard as mainstream. It’s an unfair comparison because their only commonality wad the 60s. The Beatles were exceptional and few really dispute that. Even those that do, struggle.
1969 I was 14 yrs old, and the Beatles were "The Sound"!! Bopping along trying to be cool!!
Three years later the epiphone of rock descended on me from... ta daaa. The Rolling Stones!!! Been rocking ever since. I play the Beatles for my little grandaughters to sing along with.
STONES!!! I was a classic rock junkie growing up and I heard WAY more Rolling Stones late 60s/early 70s stuff over Beatles. Beatle was too pop for me. Yes I’m sure you could hear The Rolling Stones copying the sound of the Beatles on their first 2 or 3 records. But you could definitely hear the Stones develop more of their own sound in their late 60s stuff. They just had more groove in their stuff to me and seemed like I heard more and better guitar solos in their songs as well.
"Satisfaction" isn't the greatest rock song ever written, "Gimme Shelter" is. It defined the Sixties and still as haunting and applicable to current world as was fifty plus years ago, maybe more so
gimmie shelter greatest song of all time beatles songs dont come anywhere near it
1. The Stones didn't write their own songs on their first few albums. The Beatles did.
2. The Beatles didn't put singles on albums, which was a very risky thing to do. They did it because they never wanted the listener to pay twice for the same song, and always wanted to be original. The Stones did.
3. The Beatles were always unique. Every song had something different. Eleanor Rigby has strings, Within You Without You has Eastern Instruments, Rain invented backwards music, In My Life has a sped up piano solo, I Will has a sung bassline, Penny Lane has a Picollo Trumpet solo, Tomorrow Never Knows has tape loops, Yesterday only features one member, I Feel Fine invented feedback music, etc. The Stones always played the same rock 'n' roll song over and over again, 60 years long.
4. The Beatles have practically invented genres: Pschydelic and Progessive Rock: Rain, She Said She Said, I'm Only Sleeping, Strawberry Fields, . Heavy Metal: Helter Skelter and I Want You (She's So Heavy). Eastern Rock: Norwegian Wood, Love You To, Within You Without You, The Inner Light). The Stones didn't.
5. The Beatles invented music videos. Paperback Writer, Help, I Feel Fine, Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane and Something all have music videos. They were the first.
6. The Beatles are melodically superior. Songs like Eleanor Rigby, Penny Lane, Yesterday, She's Leaving Home, Blackbird, I Will, I've Just Seen A Face, Help, If I Needed Someone, Here, There And Everywhere and For No One all feature melodies superior over every Rolling Stones song ever recorded.
The Beatles are better.
you are factually wrong on half the stuff you just said. The Beatles covered plenty of songs in their early days. And the real person to move artists to write their own songs was Bob Dylan. And the Stones singles weren't on their albums either. Not putting singles on albums wasn't an artistic decision but just a common business practice at the time. Also the Beatles didn't invent psychedelic music and weren't the first rock band to use strings. They also were not the first to do music videos. You obviously have a very limited knowledge of 60's rock. The Beatles for sure had better production values and sang better harmonies but that doesn't make them the better band.
@@hairharbor5080 Well, name one other band before the Beatles that used instrumentation and studio techniques like the Beatles did on Paperback Writer/Rain. Also name one other band before the Beatles that made music videos the way the Beatles did it with Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Hello Goodbye, Help, Ticket To Ride, Paperback Writer, etc. Name one other band that used strings before the Beatles' Yesterday.
the Beatles were the ones that parents wanted their daughters to marry. Stones were the ones the daughters wanted to marry! The Rolling Stones built what came to be called a rock and roll attitude, instrumentalists with more refined technique and stage presence.
Gimmie Shelter is superior to Satisfaction eight days a week!
Oh, I see what you did there.
spot on
Stones. Period.
I’ve always hated this question! Haha! I’m a big BEATLES fan but I can’t say either is better than the other. I like to ignore this specific question. Moving on here......
Beatles easily. I put the Stones on the next tier down with The Who.
Completely depends on my mood atm…
Some days the Stones, some days the Beatles,
And of course on many days Led Zeppelin,
Other days the Doors,
Still on other days, Steely Dan,
And so on and so on…
What I can say is that I want to hear them all at some point. Because they are all great!
The Beatles have about 200 classic tracks. The Stones have maybe 20. Jagger frightened to stop touring, he knows the Stones music will just fade away. While the Beatles will still be played till the end of time.
I don't think worried stones music will fade away. It be around for many years I don't remember anyone when I was younger playing Beatles tapes or albums at parties they were considered a bubble gum band like the monkees. Though obviously better than monkees..but the stones hot rocks was worn out along with zeppelin 4..... plus live the Beatles just sucked..I have seen McCartney live he good nowhere near the energy or excitement of a stones show...I love both bands stones for me obviously nothing wrong with the Beatles
@@jamesflores9155 The Stones were a blues cover band and still doing the same thing. Got to keep performing, Jagger knows the stones will be forgot about in 5years. The Beatles gave the Stones their first big hit. The Beatles did more for music in 8years than the Stones and Led Zeppelin could do in 2 life times. The Beatles were playing to packed out stadiums while the Stones were still doing dance halls. The Beatles are still out selling the Stones and will continue to do so for hundreds of years to come. Everything the Stones did the Beatles did first. There was the Beatles, everyone after that were just cover band. Kurt Cobine
I agree the Beatles... (must add I love the Stones) and I love love love your channel. 🎶🎶I'm glad to hear you're feeling better♥️
The Greatest Rock and Roll band in the WORLD 🌎 Ladies and Gentlemen.. The Rolling Stones!!! 🙌🏽🤘👏🏽
The media hypes the Beatles way too much. I realize the Beatles had their place and time but when you get right down to it …
come on! ..Obviously it’s The Rolling Stones. 🤘🤘🤘
Lol, no. In 50 years the stones couldn’t match half of what the Beatles achieved in 7 years. Not even close.
This channel and seeing the great conversation on music in the comments is what is RUclips at its best. Great content from you Doc, I just love music,and someone like you guys keeping this great kinda music alive.
Stones without question.
The Stones...easy.
The Rolling Stones all the way!
Not even a match. Like Mic said The Beatles had 4 singers, 4 writers plus Martin.
The Beatles obviously.
STONES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The beatles couldn't play rock n roll if they tried. The Stones #1
The Beatles is the most popular band of all time and it is very hard to talk about them in a honest fashion. Yes, they outsold everyone. Yes, they inspired a huge generation (and others in the future) and yes, they were more versitalie... But is everything THAT great? Is everything as great as Yesterday, A Day in the Life or Something? I really don't think so. I think many of their songs have a certain quality... Maybe vocals or bas but are otherwise quite forgettable. Same with The Rolling Stones. They have done SO MUCH and quite much is mediocre but at the end of the day.. I reach for The Rolling Stones more often and a top 10 songs from each band? I probably choose The Rolling Stones as well.
@Bwa Bwa Yoshi Which song is that? :)
The Beatles were super consistent where almost every song on an album was worthy of being a single (at least until the bloat of the White Album with Revolution #9 and some other too experimental for their own good songs), and The Rolling Stones had a more scattershot throw the $h!t at the wall and see what sticks approach (The Stones really didn’t have solid records in my opinion until Sticky Fingers and Exile On Main Street); but when something did stick for The Stones, it typically hit & rocked harder than The Beatles. Very different approaches, and I have a playlist with my favorite songs by both bands that I love to just set to random.
I have never been a Beetles fan. On their individually I like them. As a young kid, I liked the the Rolling Stones more, but I believe that the Animals, Herman's Hermits were equal to the Beetles but were not as hyped in the media as much. As to the 60's and early 70's CCR spoke more of the American people's thinking and the times. The Beetles writing skills were great. But hey I am different, I like Bob Dylan's songs but not his singing except for a couple of songs. I do like their White album. Each to their own.
Facts ☝️
Beatles. The Stones may have lasted longer but their quality of work for years has been average. People always talk about the Beatles innovations and how they changed Rock, I've never heard the Stones spoken of in that way. That said the Stones have a large body that stays in time, but it's all Beatles.
Here is my take, In a back alley fight? think im gonna step on the side of the Stones ( i think J,P,G&R are gonna run anyway ) musically? for me the Beatles I put ahead by leaps and bounds together and then individually also, except maybe Ringo (but I have found a new respect for Stars drumming!) On stage as a singer in a rock & roll band? I would want to sing with my same day, birthday brother Mic of the Stones. For the sure fact that vocally I think I look pretty good and I dont think I would with Paul. I feel like that also would be a much easier gig! (but Id hate myself in the morning) Honestly Im one of those people that never got the Stones appeal? dont get me wrong, they got some hits but those songs just feel simple to me! The complexity of what the Beatles put together just blows my mind time and time again.
Just to throw a little wrench into your Thinking. The Beatles used to get into fights all the time and wore the leather jackets and jeans. They only wore the shirt and ties as they made it because Brian Epstein wanted them to look professional. Also I loved John Lennon’s voice. I personally felt he was a better singer than mick. Mick didn’t play guitar so he had to dance like a goofball lol
@@DNGINFORMANT Add to that, according to Wikipedia at least, the childhood friends Mick Jagger and Keith Richards met again at Dartford train station 1961, having been separated by families moving. By then, the Beatles had been playing Reeperbahn clubs in Hamburg for a year. On the other hand, more of the Stones are alive right now, so if I needed assistance in that back alley, I guess I would go for the strolling bones. But if I on the other hand needed ... Help!
The Beatles are the World's Greatest Pop Band. The Stones are the World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band. Half of The Beatles are dead. The Stones are still touring (well, would be except for Covid).
No contest...check album sales. Beatles are in a different league of songwriting.
I enjoy a lot of Beatles songs, but I prefer the Rolling Stones for those deep pocket, hypnotic rhythms filled with grooves and riffs that were likewise raw and sophisticated with a bite of menace mixed with memorable hooks and densely layered overdubs of piano and organ, slide, acoustic, sitar, solo and sax. They also stripped the sound clean of gimmicks and got down into the gritty depths of the street or the down home country rock sound, while contrasting this with moments of tenderness and transcendence often mixed with biting tongue and cheek irony in the ballads. I actually like their singing a lot too with that rawer idiosyncratic sense of enunciation that gave it an authenticity and wit that was easier to identify with and which Mick and even Keith pulled off so marvelously like they were creating a rock and roll, country, blues, and funk archetype, and I think they sounded great harmonizing together.
The Beatles by far, never got why the two are even compared.