Thread: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

One of my hangouts began playing this tune from a few years ago called "Gimme Sympathy" by a band called Metric where they ask "Who'd you rather be? The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?". Unfortunately, the rest of the lyrics are rather vapid ("Oh, seriously?") but I've seen a few online discussions about this.

The comparisons broke down to:

Beatles
=================
White hot star that flamed out after seven years.
Many #1 records.
Hated to perform on stage.
Considered more "clean cut" and "safe" by parents of that time.
Did not adapt musically with the times.

Rolling Stones
=================
Played and toured for decades.
Fewer #1 records.
Enjoyed performing on stage.
Considered more "rude" and "wild" by parents of that time.
Performed blues and rock n roll but willing to dabble into disco and techno to stay current.

Back then, we used to tell jokes about Keith Richards either dying young or being somehow indestructable and 50 years later, the dude is still alive despite all the drugs and hard living while half the Beatles are dead.

Your thoughts?

Stones > Beatles. I think the Stones got less interesting as the 70's progressed, and by the 80's they were lame...but the late 60's very early 70's Stones are very very good.

I like them both. I grew up loving the Beatles an absurd amount. But if I had to choose between listening to one Beatles album and one Rolling Stones album, gimme Stones. Little more rough around the edges.

Beatles pretty easily for me.

The stones. The Beatles suck.

I see a red door and I want it painted black. No colors any more, I want them to turn black.

Aloha I love the Stones!! I saw them in 1973 at The Scope in Norfolk,Virginia. Great concert!! :-) Aloha

Beattles > Stones

Nirvana > Pearl Jam

I really don't see how this is even a discussion.

The Beatles are brutal.

Originally Posted by slim

I really don't see how this is even a discussion.

The Beatles are brutal.

They're essentially a boy band. It's like asking Metallica or the backstreet boys.

Whats the matter man? We goin come around 12 with some Puerto Rican girls thats just dyyyyyyin to meet you. We goin bring a case a o wine. Yeah you know we goin mess and fool around like we used to.

Originally Posted by chazoe60

They're essentially a boy band. It's like asking Metallica or the backstreet boys.

LOL. Come on. The most successful songwriting duo ever, the most No. 1 hits ever, the most covered band...I understand not liking their music, but let's be somewhat realistic.

I am an avid Beatles fan, but I have been listening to a lot of Stones. Helps that the afternoon DJ here at the classic rock station loves the Stones and plays a couple tunes an hour.

Like both but enjoyed more Beatles tracks than Stones.

"Their Satanic Majesty's Request" never got its due. Great trippy late 60's psychedelia at its finest

I believe the question was "who'd you rather be", not "who you'd rather listen to" or "Which band is better".

The fact that people still know who they are 50 years later speaks that both were very successful. The Beatles weren't really that great individually after the break-up. I always thought Paul and John both needed each other to make their songwriting better because Paul was too cutesy and John too philosophical apart.

The Beatles had more of a social conscience (mostly John and George) where as the Stones never asked you to think about what they were singing - they just wanted you to rock with it and enjoy it. The Stones seemed more hedonistic while the Beatles seemed to care about what messages they were sending, especially John.

Both got richer than they'd ever need to be.