POLL: The Beatles or Stones? Are They Still Even Relevant?

Remove all ads!

I not sure I've seen this poll posted on SP in the few short years I've been here. But I'm a fan of both these rival bands, as I am of many of the bands of the 60s. I'm sure there are a few other members on SP who feel the same as I do.

It's hard to believe that some of this stuff is forty years old. Yet, IMHO, their music is still just as great and relevant as ever. So, who still has the better grooves? But among some, especially those who are younger, they are almost fossils, relics from the past. Have these icons of the 60s counter-culture seen their day?

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 38 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: The Beatles or Stones? Are They Still Even Relevant? (38 votes.)

The Beatles or Stones? Are They Still Even Relevant? (Choose 1)
* The Beatles Forever. Keith Rrichards is really an escapee from the Vale of Shadows. - 53% (20)
* The Stones, Baby. They Got "Attitude." - 24% (9)
* Neither. Both are overrated. - 18% (7)
* Who are these guys anyway? - 0% (0)
* Forget those guys - I'll stick with my Beethoven (roll over? ...indeed). - 5% (2)

 

Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.

 

Ah bonus, the poll crashes and when it is recreated I get my old fart who listens to classical music category added.

 

I think the rhythm sections are pretty even; Charlie Watts is a great drummer, as is Ringo. But I really like Charlie's style. And although Bill Wyman is a solid bassman, I have to go with Paul on bass. In fact, I think Paul is probably one of the best bass players around, IMO.

 

Oh dear, Chandos is going to make some sort of Frankenstein's monster of a rock band by cobbling togther bits from the Stones and the Beatles! Jumping Jack Bungalow Bill!

 

Beatles. I love the Stones, but if I had to choose one bands catalog over the other, it would be the Beatles. I am amazed at the quality of their albums from start to finish.
Technical talent is probably a draw. Song writing is where the Beatles leave the Stones behind.

 

I'm doing no such thing, HB. I was only comparing the players - how they stack up against each other as musicians. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Jack Funk - I completely agree. As song writers the Beatles were far superior, which is why I voted for them also.

 

I'm just not a big fan of the stones. I like a couple of their songs, but personally, I think my dog can sing better than Mick! I've always thought they were the worlds ugliest band, though it hasn't seemed to stop them from nabbing some hot ladies.

The Beatles, on the other hand...love em! One of my favorite songs is still 'While my guitar gently weeps'.

 

The Rolling Stones deserve some points for the unbelievable longevity but, for me, you cannot go past the Beatles. Nothing beats listening to their entire catalogue from start to finish on a long car journey.

 

Stones? Get real, Chandos! Longevity (yep, HB) is the only thing they've ever achieved. Three good songs, an overrated performance - and yes, they're ugly as hell.

I voted for the Beatles. Although Obladi-Oblada makes me throw up. And I have a nervous breakdown every time I'm forced to listen to Yesterday or Yellow Submarine.

Now, Revolution No 9 on the other hand - marvellous. And While My Guitar Gently Wheeps: long live George Harrison! (Too late? Eh, whatever...)

George has written some of the most profound Beatles songs, I always felt he was a bit underrated. McCartney? Please, just listen to the crap he put out after he went solo. Terrible! McCartney is nothing withhout Lennon. Those two really shined. I was a wee bit disappointed when Paul didn't marry Yoko Ono after Linda's death - what a beautiful couple they would have been...

(Just for the records: the three good Stones' songs are Paint It Black, Angie and Ruby Tuesday.)

 

They are both great bands, but are very over rated (BTW I like classical music and I am but 24).

I think most (i.e. not everyone) people only say they are good because they are considered 'classic'. Think of James Joycs's book 'Ulysses'. Its pure nonsense, but because he is a highly regarded author, people think it is an 'intellectual' book because they don't want to sound stupid saying they do not understand it, or simply don't like it. I think some people think this way with the Beatles and the Stones.

 

The Stones. I like the beatles (Especially George Harrison) but I prefer the Stones sound. It just hit a nerve in me that I really liked.

Darkthrone - Are those the only Stones songs you've heard

Songs like Memo From Turner and Red Rooster feature great slide work and an amazing blues sound. Besides them, what about Brown Sugar, Wild Horses or Sympathy For The Devil?

Chandos - Paul McCartney isn't all that good on the bass, TBH.

I have to say though, that I think the Stones are still revered by young musicians (myself included ) - Except metal guitarists, who wouldn't know a blues lick from their arsehole

 

Sorry I am not into my 'white-boy' blues

I preferred the original version of 'Little Red Rooster'

 

Ha, you've got me there, Mr Crusader.

 

I don't really recognise the Stones and I've heard quite a lot of Beatles, so I guess my vote would have to go there, between just the two. However, Beethoven also has a place in my... errr... ears.

I love Yesterday. I even sing it. Interesting thing, with just a minimal adaptation, like the choice of instruments, it becomes a masterpiece of classical music.

 

I believe that John Lehnon was one of the greatest music genius of the 20th century but my vote goes to Stones, mainly because Stones were always the bad boys, they were representing the wild side, while Beatles were more mainstream.

 

Here here DMC! Zeppelin all the way!

Too funny and so true!

I have to disagree with Sympathy for the Devil...all I hear when I listen to this song is the constant 'hoo hoo'. Way too repetetive. Now Paint It Black and Gimme Shelter...those are good Stones' songs.

 

But by the same token, many people dislike them for the same reason. These are the same music snobs who think that anything popular must be crap and only support bands that only 4 people have ever heard of. If those bands ever make it big then they are considered to have 'sold out' even if they are making exactly the same music.

 

Well, that's just my opinion. I thought he and Ringo made a pretty good section.

Those are all good songs, but not my favs, which are: Gimme Shelter(no, I'm not into drugs, but great song), Can't you hear me Knockin' (superb sax over Richard's soulful guitar breaks), Street Fightin' Man, The Last Time, Get off my Cloud and 19th Nervous Breakdown (Great drums!).

While Zep is a great band, they had almost no value as 60s counter-culture rockers. They were never symbols of protest in the same way that the Beatles or Stones were, at least as I see it. Although, I heard if you play "Stairway to Heaven" backwards...