- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fresh Debate: Beatles or Stones?
Posted on 12/9/20 at 10:53 pm to BorrisMart
Posted on 12/9/20 at 10:53 pm to BorrisMart
Every Beatles album was as good or better than any other artist(s)' Greatest Hits album. They changed music. They changed culture. Their album in 1964 sounds nothing like their final one just six years later. Dozens of their #1 singles aren't even on albums.
What they did in six years is as unbelievable and unlikely as anything that has or will ever happen in entertainment.
I'd rather see the Stones live in concert, but this is not a fair fight.
What they did in six years is as unbelievable and unlikely as anything that has or will ever happen in entertainment.
I'd rather see the Stones live in concert, but this is not a fair fight.
0
Posted on 12/10/20 at 7:53 am to Hoodie
I ever cared for either one.
Posted on 12/10/20 at 8:21 am to Hoodie
Posted on 12/10/20 at 8:28 am to Hoodie
quote:
Fresh Debate: Beatles or Stones?
Beatles and it ain't close.....at all.
Posted on 12/10/20 at 9:25 am to TFTC
Check your sarcasm detector, brother. 
Posted on 12/10/20 at 10:14 am to Hoodie
The Stones didn't have George Martin. Beatles songs in 67 and 68 are like paintings.
Posted on 12/10/20 at 10:36 am to The Boat
quote:
Every Beatles album was as good or better than any other artist(s)' Greatest Hits album. They changed music. They changed culture. Their album in 1964 sounds nothing like their final one just six years later. Dozens of their #1 singles aren't even on albums. What they did in six years is as unbelievable and unlikely as anything that has or will ever happen in entertainment.
quote:
George Martin
All of the above make the Beatles culturally and musically the best. The longevity of their sound is not outdone by anyone else.
Just in their era they differentiated themselves from the Stones--Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison were all writing songs individually, and the vocals by each made the Beatles sound different, particulary with their immaculate harmonies.
The Stones, on the other hand, are the Stones...most of their stuff has their signature sound and vocals, which is fine, but there's less variety and innovation.
Posted on 12/10/20 at 9:31 pm to parrotdr
The Beatles are the standard against which all others are judged...50 years later. Like the Stones but they ain't in the Beatles universe.
Posted on 12/11/20 at 7:43 am to Hoodie
Entirely subjective. When I was younger I didn’t get the appeal of a lot of Beatles songs but as I got older I got deeper into them. They’re entirely different styles of bands. Personally I think The Who are better than The Rolling Stones.
Posted on 12/11/20 at 7:54 am to Hoodie
The Beatles haven't played together in over 50 years yet, people still talk about them, still listen to their music, mention them as a musical influence.
Posted on 12/11/20 at 5:09 pm to Hoodie
quote:
You make a good case for the Stones. Convince me that Mick and Keith and Co. have a bigger cultural imprint than the Beatles, now. You may sway me...
Stones actually have a better body of work. They have reinvented themselves numerous times....from all of those classic 60's hits in the Brian Jones era, then they go into what was there best period with Beggars Banquet through Exile. Still put out great music in the 70's and then come in for a third act and newer heights with Some Girls - Tattoo You. Jagger is the original rock front man which generations have copied. Keith was the ultimate decadent rock star which generations have copied and some died trying. They are the original blueprint for a rock band. The Beatles were a cultural phenom. as much as anything but Stones put out a better body of work and are still relevant today.
Posted on 12/11/20 at 5:36 pm to Hoodie
It depends on what the debate points are.
The Beatles were a once in a generation cultural phenomenon. They were bigger than the music itself. The screaming girls, movies (Help!), the hair, stadium concerts (Shea)...being British aarrghh..
Now the music is always debatable. Both bands produced enormous amounts of excellent music.
The Beatles were a once in a generation cultural phenomenon. They were bigger than the music itself. The screaming girls, movies (Help!), the hair, stadium concerts (Shea)...being British aarrghh..
Now the music is always debatable. Both bands produced enormous amounts of excellent music.
Posted on 12/11/20 at 6:44 pm to Hoodie
The Stones are a Rock an Roll band, the Beatles were a pop group, two different genres that can’t be compared.
Posted on 12/12/20 at 10:30 am to Hoodie
It's all personal preference, but I can name more post Beatles George Harrison songs I like than Stone's song.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News