Who's #1? Stones or Beatles?

(Topic ID: 226211)

Who's #1? Stones or Beatles?


By DBLM

5 months ago



Topic Stats

  • 213 posts
  • 63 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 5 months ago by Spinape
  • Topic is favorited by 4 Pinsiders

You

Topic Gallery

There have been 36 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

052505pltmotchandler.pdf (PDF preview)
mj michael-jackson-evidence-photos-inside-death-house-drugs-propofol-023-480w-1 (resized).jpg
MJ article-2339949-1A443CE7000005DC-626_634x445 (resized).jpg
sddefault (resized).jpg
54966B19-3F20-4C47-9C67-D1040D2C22A4 (resized).jpeg
2izo4d (resized).jpg
lonerangerhead (resized).jpg
Tom Wolfe (resized).jpg
2iyy8u (resized).jpg
goatshead (resized).jpg
mat (resized).jpg
Bowie-and-Jagger.jpg.cf (resized).jpg
3169a_lg (resized).jpeg
2eev4wg (resized).jpg
1ABE4740-7450-4A78-9C07-1403FC9D49AB (resized).jpeg
DmgDOH1UwAAO_n3 (resized).jpg

There are 213 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 5.
#1 5 months ago

Who you got? Looking at you, vid1900

#2 5 months ago

Stones arent #1 but they are way better than the tiresome Beatles. Zzzzzzzzzz

#3 5 months ago

For me, Stones all the way. Yes, they have longevity. Yes, they have more great songs than you can count. Yes, they have inspired all types of pop culture. Yes, they constantly reinvent themselves. But they win for one reason: they have the greatest and most rock and roll (listen to the lyrics and the context of the time) song of all time--

Sympathy for the Devil!

Change my mind.

#4 5 months ago

The Stones rock harder so I give them the trophy. But the Beatles are still a great band. Even their early records, which some tend to ignore, are very good. Either way, to me they are iconic bands.

210.jpg.cf (resized).jpgrolling-stones-80-05-14.jpg.cf (resized).jpg
#6 5 months ago

Neither.

#7 5 months ago

Stones are also an absolute killer blues band. Keith singing blues is tremendous. Their blues album a year or so ago is fantastic. Plus, they had this kickass performance with Clapton and John Lee Hooker if you have never seen it.

29
#8 5 months ago

The Beatles are incomparable. They didn't just change music, but they changed the world by influencing art, culture, and politics. They went from "Love Me Do" to "Come Together" in 5 years. Any of their albums from Rubber Soul on would be any other group's best album. They're like the Addams Family pinball of popular music. Addams influenced all games that would come after in the same way that The Beatles influenced all music that would come after. Every group for the last 50 years has been influenced either directly or indirectly by The Beatles. Musicians who say that they weren't influenced by The Beatles were influenced by someone who was. The Stones spent the 60's trying to copy The Beatles. They only came into their own after The Beatles broke up.

The Beatles can't be beaten in any comparison contest.

#9 5 months ago

All fair points, usandthem. No denying that they weren't influential and did not have great songs, which they absolutely did. I guess I am just more of a McCartney guy vs Lennon guy, so that has some influence.

I personally prefer both the Beach Boys and Queen from a song and execution perspective vice The Beatles.

#10 5 months ago
Quoted from usandthem:The Beatles are incomparable. They didn't just change music, but they changed the world by influencing art, culture, and politics. They went from "Love Me Do" to "Come Together" in 5 years. Any of their albums from Rubber Soul on would be any other group's best album. They're like the Addams Family pinball of popular music. Addams influenced all games that would come after in the same way that The Beatles influenced all music that would come after. Every group for the last 50 years has been influenced either directly or indirectly by The Beatles. Musicians who say that they weren't influenced by The Beatles were influenced by someone who was. The Stones spent the 60's trying to copy The Beatles. They only came into their own after The Beatles broke up.
The Beatles can't be beaten in any comparison contest.

I couldn't have said it better!

#11 5 months ago

You have love the bass.

#13 5 months ago

I see your (admittedly) good Beatles songs and raise you

#14 5 months ago

gona have to go with the Beatles since they actually grew with the times and as a band. Rolling stones found one sound and Rode it to death. don't even get me started on ACDC

#15 5 months ago

Love them both. Gotta take the Beatles though

#16 5 months ago

Only Paul and John play on "The Ballad of John and Yoko"

#17 5 months ago

i pick Led Zeppelin.......

#18 5 months ago

"A Day in the Life" with the Stones at the recording session

#19 5 months ago

The Beatles weren’t around long enough to put out some of the horrible crap that the Stones have. Don’t get me wrong I like the Stones but some of their music is just horrible . Like them both but got to give it to the Beatles.

#20 5 months ago
Quoted from trilogybeer:

The Beatles weren’t around long enough to put out some of the horrible crap that the Stones have. Don’t get me wrong I like the Stones but some of their music is just horrible . Like them both but got to give it to the Beatles.

They did release some crap, but I enjoyed Voodoo Lounge from their newer stuff

#21 5 months ago

I like the Stones more...but that is a personal choice. The Beatles had the bigger influence. The Rolling Stones just tried to keep up.

Beatles (resized).jpgRolling Stones (resized).jpg
#22 5 months ago

Live on the David Frost show

#23 5 months ago

I've always admired both bands.

I give the edge to the Beatles as being better songwriters and quit when it was the right time.

Love the Stones early work, but after Brian Jones died, they seemed to lose some of their heart and soul, but kept cranking out some decent music throughout the 70s.

#24 5 months ago

I prefer rolling Stones they created some of my favorite songs like paint it Black, gimme shelter, and rain fall down. But, the Beatles are also a good band.

-1
#25 5 months ago

The Beatles were marketed for little girls, the Stones were for adults.

Not for the kids....
keith-richards-wasted-poster-poster-print (resized).jpg

larger (resized).jpg
#26 5 months ago
Quoted from vid1900:

The Beatles were marketed for little girls, the Stones were for adults.
Not for the kids....
[quoted image][quoted image]

The Beatles had an incredibly diverse career. They started as a fan girl band, but they continued to evolve. Compare their early work to the white album

#27 5 months ago
Quoted from Spinape:

The Beatles had an incredibly diverse career. They started as a fan girl band, but they continued to evolve. Compare their early work to the white album

Although I have all their albums, I can't even listen to the early ones.

When their albums starting coming out on CD, the record company released one ever few months, in chronological order.

Since they had said that all the discs were already mastered, why not just release them all at once?

The record company answered "Everybody would just buy Sgt Pepper, and never even look at the other albums."

You know that's exactly what would have happened.

#28 5 months ago
Quoted from vid1900:

The Beatles were marketed for little girls, the Stones were for adults.
Not for the kids....

Funny thing is the Beatles lived the bad boy life thru their early years jamming in Hamburg all the way till the end and with the Stones it started out as more of an act.

#29 5 months ago
Quoted from vid1900:

The Beatles were marketed for little girls, the Stones were for adults.

Not for the kids....

KR (resized).jpg
#30 5 months ago

john-ganja-3 (resized).jpg

Benson_Beatles_RingoStarr_Smoking_l (resized).jpg

#31 5 months ago
Quoted from DBLM:

Sympathy for the Devil!

LTG : )

#32 5 months ago

Truly one of the best cover albums of all time.

englands-newest-hitmakers-600x537 (resized).jpg
#33 5 months ago
Quoted from o-din:

Truly one of the best cover albums of all time.

Now that's good !

LTG : )

#34 5 months ago
Quoted from o-din:

Truly one of the best cover albums of all time.

They did look better than the Beatles "Yesterday and Today" cover album. The butcher version.

LTG : )

#35 5 months ago
Quoted from LTG:

Now that's good !
LTG : )

This one's not too shabby either.

511UNiwlTwL._SY355_ (resized).jpg
#36 5 months ago

Can't we all just get along?

CDJoYTNW4AAprCE (resized).jpg
#37 5 months ago

I like both....
Mick's sweaty armpits in "Start Me Up" music video......Classic!

Rolling2 (resized).jpg
#38 5 months ago

Oasis

#39 5 months ago

If anything can help you decide - this is it:

Metric - Gimme Sympathy

#40 5 months ago

The Beatles were the first, more than they were the best.
But the Stones tried harder... like Avis vs Hertz.

#41 5 months ago

Before the Beatles, bands sang someone's song. The Beatles wrote their own music. They wrote songs for other bands. They let the Stones record some that they (John) wrote. Elvis sang some 600 songs but never wrote one. It got to be the Beatles hands down.

#42 5 months ago

If it weren't for the Beatles, it would be hard to imagine the Rolling Stones would have ever been.

The Beatles really invented modern pop music and changed the way pop songs were structured.

#43 5 months ago
Quoted from tamoore:

If it weren't for the Beatles, it would be hard to imagine the Rolling Stones would have ever been.
The Beatles really invented modern pop music and changed the way pop songs were structured.

Agreed - "Keef" is my avatar but the The Beatles are #1. The fact that Lennon and McCartney wrote the stones their first "original" hit : I Wanna Be Your Man tells you all you need to know.

#44 5 months ago

Beatles all the way!

Only thing I ever liked that Jagger did was this video. Just bummed bowie got wrapped up in it.

Enjoy watching what Mic worked so hard on. Haha

#46 5 months ago

I like both, neither are close to #1 for me.

#47 5 months ago

Stones all day over the Beatles. No contest.

#48 5 months ago
Quoted from o-din:

Funny thing is the Beatles lived the bad boy life thru their early years jamming in Hamburg all the way till the end and with the Stones it started out as more of an act.

There has always been a perception problem with these two bands. Everyone thinks the Stones were the bad boys but they were middle class yuppie art school Londoners, while the Beatles were working class from the rough industrial town of Liverpool.

#49 5 months ago

Gene Vincent

#50 5 months ago

Two of my favorites in addition to The Who and Zeppelin.

I give the edge to the Stones over the Beatles. I like their overall catalogue more than the Beatles.

The Beatles have some stuff that is absolutely great but their are quite a few songs that I don’t like as well.

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 9.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
$ 49.99
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 39.95
Playfield - Protection
Little Shop Of Games
$ 5,799.00
Pinball Machine
Operation Pinball
$ 269.00
$ 999.00
Flipper Parts
Mircoplayfields
From: $ 799.00
Hardware
CPR Playfields
$ 29.99
Cabinet - Sound/Speakers
Lighted Pinball Mods
$ 89.95
Lighting - Interactive
Pin Bright
$ 15.00
Cabinet - Decals
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 9.95
Apparel - Unisex
Pinball Wheezer
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
From: $ 12.99
Lighting - Led
Gameroom Mods
$ 69.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
The MOD Couple
$ 189.00
Displays
Boston Pinball Company
$ 4.95
$ 129.25
$ 144.00
Lighting - Backbox
The MOD Couple
$ 60.00
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
Mods for your pinballs
$ 159.99
Lighting - Other
Lighted Pinball Mods
From: $ 42.00
Cabinet - Shooter Rods
ModFather Pinball Mods
$ 48.00
Cabinet - Other
ModFather Pinball Mods
€ 159.00
Cabinet - Toppers
FlipperLED
From: $ 48.00
There are 213 posts in this topic. You are on page 1 of 5.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside