Back when I was a lad in the 60's you could divide music afficiandos into two camps, those who liked the Beatles and those who prefered the Stones. As my friends, aquaintances, and myself aged you could see the difference between the two. The Beatles group leaned more to pop music, listening to things like Casey Kasem's Top 40 and then disco, while the others tended to more hard core rock.  Did any of you ever notice this? What group would you identify yourself with?

Personally, I am a member of the Beatles bunch. After the Beatles split in '69, I listened to mostly mainstream pop which then involved into a deep appreciation for 70's soul. Groups like the Chi-Lites, the O'Jay's, Stylistics, Delfonics, Dramatics, and Al Green were among my many favorites. As that genre slowly faded by the late 70's I became a disco guy and I still have the white suit to prove it. (Not that it fits me anymore.)

Again, was this only from my perspective or did you see it too?

Do we have to do this?
???

I like both.

I think I went in reverse, possibly because I wasn't around back then. ;D

I grew up listening to Soul, Funk, Disco, etc (thanks, Mom and Dad!).  Then I discovered the Beatles.  I love the heck out of them, but I also appreciate the Stones ("Beast of Burden" is a favorite of mine).

So you may be right in your assessment, I don't know. :)

I think I went in reverse, possibly because I wasn't around back then. ;D

I grew up listening to Soul, Funk, Disco, etc (thanks, Mom and Dad!).  Then I discovered the Beatles.  I love the heck out of them, but I also appreciate the Stones ("Beast of Burden" is a favorite of mine).

So you may be right in your assessment, I don't know. :)


The only Stones album I ever purchased was "Some Girls" which had "Beast of Burden" on it. I also liked "Shattered" and "The Girl With The Far Away Eyes". I hate to admit that it was an 8 track.

This really isn't a fair comparison, because the Stones have a numerical advantage and it would be almost impossible to determine which one of them should be removed from the lineup in order to make it a fair fight.

However, if the Beatles were to square off against the Kinks then I would definitely put my money on the latter, because Ray Davies could kick Paul, George, and Ringo's asses all by himself. 

This really isn't a fair comparison, because the Stones have a numerical advantage and it would be almost impossible to determine which one of them should be removed from the lineup in order to make it a fair fight.

However, if the Beatles were to square off against the Kinks then I would definitely put my money on the latter, because Ray Davies could kick Paul, George, and Ringo's asses all by himself.


No he couldn't.

Well maybe Paul...

No he couldn't.

Well maybe Paul...


I think he could take all three of them.

I met Ray Davies after a concert a few years back, and he had this almost Clint Eastwood-like badass vibe about him. He was 65 years old at the time and he looked like he could still run a triathalon.  :o

This really isn't a fair comparison, because the Stones have a numerical advantage and it would be almost impossible to determine which one of them should be removed from the lineup in order to make it a fair fight.

However, if the Beatles were to square off against the Kinks then I would definitely put my money on the latter, because Ray Davies could kick Paul, George, and Ringo's asses all by himself. 


He'd be hard pressed to kick George's ass since he's dead. :)

I would have to go with the Beatles.  Mick Jagger skeeves me out and it makes it hard to like any of the Stones' music.

I love them both...although I love all the Beatles' records but only some of the Stones' records.

AL-B is right, though, going forward from "Dig a Pony" one wonders what tripe they'd be spitting out by 1977!
:P

I love them both...although I love all the Beatles' records but only some of the Stones' records.

AL-B is right, though, going forward from "Dig a Pony" one wonders what tripe they'd be spitting out by 1977!
:P


LOL - I like "Dig a Pony!"

We have done this before, let me find my original reply.

This kicks the crap out of anything the Beatles ever did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fa4HUiFJ6c&feature=related

Of course that's just my opinion, and I eagerly anticipate any evidence that might prove me wrong.  ;)

I don't understand this who's better than who crap. 

I don't understand this who's better than who crap. 


The Beatles are definately better than crap

The stones are an excellent band. Fantastic. The 2nd best band ever. But the Beatles put out more hits in 6 years than the Stones have in 50 years. Stones were excellent. Beatles were magic. 

The Beatles are definately better than crap


;D  True, and there is a lot of crap out there.

Let's see, the Beatles had 27 number one hits, the Stones had 8. As solo artists you had George Harrison with hits like My Sweet Lord, What is Life?, and Give Me Love.

Ringo had 2 number ones with Photograph and You're Sixteen.

John released Imagine, Whatever Gets You Through The Night, Instant Karma, Mind Games, and many more.

Paul McCartney with Wings and as a solo artist has too many to mention.

The Stones talent as individuals produced...

Let's see, the Beatles had 27 number one hits, the Stones had 8. As solo artists you had George Harrison with hits like My Sweet Lord, What is Life?, and Give Me Love.

Ringo had 2 number ones with Photograph and You're Sixteen.

John released Imagine, Whatever Gets You Through The Night, Instant Karma, Mind Games, and many more.

Paul McCartney with Wings and as a solo artist has too many to mention.

The Stones talent as individuals produced...


http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/additional/large/e5a4_bazinga_hoodie.jpg

I will say again, this versus that stuff to me is kinda lame.  A lot of it is just personal preference. There can't be any argument, though, that in terms of being able to stand on each individual talent, the Beatles have proven themselves unusual in that each one was able to carve out a successful career beyond that which catapulted them to stardom.  That they found each other and played together as a group is serendipity, making it work was genius. 

We can work it out till we can gain satisfaction.

I would have to go with the Beatles.  Mick Jagger skeeves me out and it makes it hard to like any of the Stones' music.


Is it Jagger's arrogance you're annoyed by? If yes then he has a boatload of it!  ;D
I'm not mocking you I'm just curious.

Is it Jagger's arrogance you're annoyed by? If yes then he has a boatload of it!  ;D
I'm not mocking you I'm just curious.


I feel the same way about Steven Tyler, who is actually nothing more than a low rent Jagger. It isn't the arrogance.  It is the overwhelming feeling that there are small things crawling in unusual places that would cause you to begin scratching if you came within 10 feet.

Who has the Moves Like McCartney?

I feel the same way about Steven Tyler, who is actually nothing more than a low rent Jagger. It isn't the arrogance.  It is the overwhelming feeling that there are small things crawling in unusual places that would cause you to begin scratching if you came within 10 feet.


Thanks for your response.  :)

I feel the same way about Steven Tyler, who is actually nothing more than a low rent Jagger. It isn't the arrogance.  It is the overwhelming feeling that there are small things crawling in unusual places that would cause you to begin scratching if you came within 10 feet.


I never thought Tyler was arrogant, just skeezy and goofy. I couldn't understand when my sister was infatuated with him.  Shaun Cassidy and Peter Frampton I could figure out, but Steven Tyler?  I was like, what does she see in that guy?
8-P

Is it Jagger's arrogance you're annoyed by? If yes then he has a boatload of it!  ;D
I'm not mocking you I'm just curious.



I feel the same way about Steven Tyler, who is actually nothing more than a low rent Jagger. It isn't the arrogance.  It is the overwhelming feeling that there are small things crawling in unusual places that would cause you to begin scratching if you came within 10 feet.



Danoota summed up my feelings to a T.  I feel the same way about Steven Tyler.  ick

LOL - I like "Dig a Pony!"


Don't make me go there!

Well I wasn't alive anywhere near Beatlemania, but I prefer The Beatles to The Rolling Stones.

Both have some very nice songs though.

Don't make me go there!


John Lennon loved to play with words.  To put them together in different ways.  He had his own special poetry.  "Dig a Pony" is a great example of that.  Plus with them putting it together with "All I want is you."  I don't know.  I loved it the first time I heard it.

John Lennon loved to play with words.  To put them together in different ways.  He had his own special poetry.  "Dig a Pony" is a great example of that.  Plus with them putting it together with "All I want is you."  I don't know.  I loved it the first time I heard it.


I love "Dig a Pony" but it did not auger well for future Beatles music!
8)

I love "Dig a Pony" but it did not auger well for future Beatles music!
8)


I got it out of my system while auguring that other thread into the ground, so this thread's still safe for another day :)

Back when I was a lad in the 60's you could divide music afficiandos into two camps, those who liked the Beatles and those who prefered the Stones. As my friends, aquaintances, and myself aged you could see the difference between the two. The Beatles group leaned more to pop music, listening to things like Casey Kasem's Top 40 and then disco, while the others tended to more hard core rock.  Did any of you ever notice this? What group would you identify yourself with?

Personally, I am a member of the Beatles bunch. After the Beatles split in '69, I listened to mostly mainstream pop which then involved into a deep appreciation for 70's soul. Groups like the Chi-Lites, the O'Jay's, Stylistics, Delfonics, Dramatics, and Al Green were among my many favorites. As that genre slowly faded by the late 70's I became a disco guy and I still have the white suit to prove it. (Not that it fits me anymore.)

Again, was this only from my perspective or did you see it too?


You're pointing out something interesting – of the people who preferred the Beatles and the people who preferred the Stones, in which musical preference direction did each go? and is there a consistency there. I didn't see anyone really identifying with this observation as I skimmed through the answers. For me, during the 60's and 70's, both groups were important, but I saw them as alike mostly in that they were both wildly popular. I saw the Beatles as being on a spiritual path, seeking both higher ways and more original, whimsical ways of understanding and expressing things. And their music was generally sweeter (McCartney's influence probably... and Lennon's influence being the more cerebral.) The Stones - they seem to be reaching for a more poetic, more impressionistic approach, plus, of course, always wild and raucous.  I liked them both... it's kind of asking which you like better, roast beef or chocolate ice cream. (now don't make me compare those foods to those groups. ha.)  I think my soul preferred the Beatles. So what did I go on to like?? Well, the Beatles liking side went on to enjoy singer-songwriter music, and my rock-n-roll self went on to like ....well... rock-n-roll. Hard rock. Psychedelic rock. Traffic, Jethro Tull, Johnny Winter, Eric Clapton, and when it came to Led Zeppelin, well, that was the ultimate!! Now? well.... now.... I prefer to have NOTHING on the radio!

You're pointing out something interesting – of the people who preferred the Beatles and the people who preferred the Stones, in which musical preference direction did each go? and is there a consistency there. I didn't see anyone really identifying with this observation as I skimmed through the answers. For me, during the 60's and 70's, both groups were important, but I saw them as alike mostly in that they were both wildly popular. I saw the Beatles as being on a spiritual path, seeking both higher ways and more original, whimsical ways of understanding and expressing things. And their music was generally sweeter (McCartney's influence probably... and Lennon's influence being the more cerebral.) The Stones - they seem to be reaching for a more poetic, more impressionistic approach, plus, of course, always wild and raucous.  I liked them both... it's kind of asking which you like better, roast beef or chocolate ice cream. (now don't make me compare those foods to those groups. ha.)  I think my soul preferred the Beatles. So what did I go on to like?? Well, the Beatles liking side went on to enjoy singer-songwriter music, and my rock-n-roll self went on to like ....well... rock-n-roll. Hard rock. Psychedelic rock. Traffic, Jethro Tull, Johnny Winter, Eric Clapton, and when it came to Led Zeppelin, well, that was the ultimate!! Now? well.... now.... I prefer to have NOTHING on the radio!


I agree ^  But I still listen to the radio.  ;D

My heart also belongs to the fab four.  I think it always will.  But my very favorite thing is re-discovering music, and ever since this thread was started I've been listening to the Rolling Stones almost non-stop.  I have always been a big fan...but different songs mean different things to you in different parts of your life.  And right now I am all about the Stones.

"Dear Mr. Manson
Have you heard from or seen
A man from Wisconsin by the name of Ed Gein?
You helped me discover the Beatles and Stones
But he turned me on to the beauty of bones!"

-- The Fibonaccis