the beatles vs the rolling stones

Also As Tears Go By is a great Stone prog track.

The Beatles for there unique songwriting talents. Their influences of American music and Classical was naturally formulated into a very original way of writing songs. The Rolling Stones for a while did the exact same thing. "Ruby Tuesday" and just loads of songs that revealed progressive elements. "2000 Light Years From Home" and "The Lantern" are among my favorites. Very strange songs. I think that Keith Richards came up with some truly interesting acoustic style chord structures and he has a good ear. He may not be a fancy lead player but, he writes or wrote some pretty melodic and dreamy chord progressions. The Beatles however seemed to be more advanced than the Stones in the area of harmony. Harmony applied to instrumentation and vocals.

"The Stones" all day, everyday.  

The Beatles! *in my best Cockney accent*

Yeah, hands down Beatles. I do like a lot of Stones though. The Satanic Majesties Request is a gem.

I'm not super into the Beatles but I despise the Rolling Stones.  Has there ever been such generic music?  In fact it's stuff like that that makes me so aggravated when people bi%$$ about how bad modern mainstream music is (and it is certainly), because there's always been recycled and unoriginal pop music blaring over the radio, repeating the same three chords endlessly.  Though like I said, I'm not to into the Beatles either, nor am I into their overly blown impact on music.  I hate pop music

The Stones could be wonderfully proggy at times (in a dark way) while the Beatles seemed always cheerful in how they conducted themselves (with the exception of Strawberry Fields', 'Walrus, and Blue Jay Way, among a few others). Pete Townsend once remarked that he and many other Englishmen laughed at the Fabs when they first came on the scene, while the Stones appeared to be the real deal from the get go. I'll still go with Los Beatles.

The Beatles by light years.

Well, isn't that a beaut? Formally, I prefer the Beatles. But when ya get right down to it, I place Banquet, Bleed, Exile, and Fingers rather equally with Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road, Revolver, and White Album. The only big difference is that Abbey Road (my favorite Beatles) thinly beats out Sticky Fingers (my favorite Stones). Both are quite high on my list, but if I were to be honest with myself I'd go Beatles-o.

Here, here! Though I don't ADORE Exile, but I greatly enjoy their albums beginning with Aftermath, ending with Goat's Head Soup. Angie!  ANNNNNNNNGIEEEE dumdumdumdumdumdum. I'll just take this poll as an excuse to say how much i like both bands. (not worship or idolize, golly).

rogerthat wrote: The T wrote: himtroy wrote: I'm not super into the Beatles but I despise the Rolling Stones.  Has there ever been such generic music?  In fact it's stuff like that that makes me so aggravated when people bi%$$ about how bad modern mainstream music is (and it is certainly), because there's always been recycled and unoriginal pop music blaring over the radio, repeating the same three chords endlessly.  Though like I said, I'm not to into the Beatles either, nor am I into their overly blown impact on music.  I hate pop music I totally agree with the description of The Rollings Stones. They have like 4 or 5 decen lt songs and a lot of generic ones. The Beatles were so much better, even though I don't love them as much as others do. A friendly suggestion: give Satanic Majesties Request a good shot, MIGHT click. They are not really all that generic but they have simply proved much easier to imitate than the Beatles. Only the purring vocals and lush feel of Beatles are easily imitated by all these Britpop bands, their sophistication and mastery of composition is beyond the grasp of most.

The problem is, with a few exceptions, all Rolling Stone songs sound the same to me... Most Beatles songs are easy to distinguish from their other songs, and many are really memorable.