re: Beatles or Stones?

quote:

---

We can debate it. The Beatles were more experimental musically, but the Stones were always of a different cut. They were always pretty raw in terms of sound. The Stones though, put out some fantastic, if not their best work as a band from 1967 with Their Satanic Majesties Request to 1973/1974 and Goat's Head Soup. It's straight up rock with a bluesy country feel with Dead Flowers , Sweet Virginia and even Let it Bleed.

---

That's funny - those are literally my 2 favorites!

quote:

---

The Beatles were occupying a different lane though, it's hard to describe. They certainly mor experimental than the Stones

---

Experimental...but almost always hitting the bullseye. It was never like "oh, at least they tried that, even if it wasn't that good". Virtually everything they did was spectacular. Seriously, IMO, just really not any misses (outside of like Revolution #9 or Wild Honey Pie, which I don't even take as serious).

I argue that they had the best song in any genre they tried - including "Oh, Darling" (Louisiana Swamp Rock).

For me the Stones' catalogue is very top heavy - and they DO have a very distinct sound with a scary edge to it (Gimme Shelter, Sympathy, etc.) They have like 7 of the greatest tunes of all time. But the Beatles have like 40.

quote:

---

lyrically, it's the Beatles and it really is not close. Lennon and McCartney were just ridiculous in that sphere......particularly McCartney in the later years.

---

I care way less about this, but you're obviously right.