Poll
Question:
The Beatles or the Rolling Stones
Option 1: Beatles
Option 2: Stones
Jagger & co all the way, for me.
Had to vote Beatles since the Stones are a joke and are only remembered today because they're still around.
What? Did I accidentally vote Stones? FAIL :face:
Beatles. Songwriting genius over showmanship.
I demand a recount. The results freak me out.
Stones
Stones suck.
Beatles = vastly overrated
They both suck donkey dick.
Both awesome in my books. slight edge to Beatles for my own sentimental reasons. Really though as bands aside from both being sort of "Invasion" bands, they are as different as night and day.
I can listen to a few songs or an album of either of these bands most any day.
people who go on about how over rated either band is, is just being an asshole. They are institutions. They aren't going anywhere.
60s/70s Stones > Beatles > 80s - present Stones
The current Stones are the best Stones cover band these days, though. :)
Never saw the attraction of the Stones, frankly. At their best they were... loud.
Simon and Garfunkel own both of them, though the Beatles less than the Stones.
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 12:09:21 AM
Never saw the attraction of the Stones, frankly. At their best they were... loud.
Simon and Garfunkel own both of them, though the Beatles less than the Stones.
Simon and Garfunkel were great, but not all that versatile(at least when they were together*). The Beatles could rock out one song, then be as tender as S&G the next.
*Of course Paul Simon's solo career he continued making soft music, just with more exotic instruments.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2009, 12:18:45 AM
Simon and Garfunkel were great, but not all that versatile(at least when they were together*). The Beatles could rock out one song, then be as tender as S&G the next.
Well, they were definately different genres, but S&G had no bungled songs like "Why Don't We Do It in the Road' or "Tomorrow Never Knows."
True, they only released five albums, but that was at least in part because they didn't fill them with filler crap.
"The Complete Simon and Garfunkel" has more great songs, IMO, the "The Complete Beatles." Add George Harrison's post-Beatles stuff, and I will concede the tie.
Close run thing, but The Stones later stuff is crap, whereas the split Beatles stuff has some ok to amazing things. Put together, The Stones lasted too long and The Beatles maybe not long enough.
The Kinks! :bowler:
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 12, 2009, 02:46:19 AM
The Kinks! :bowler:
I, much like Brain, would take The Animals over The Kinks, though.
Beatles, no doubt about it.
Stones, without a doubt.
Beatles? Are you kidding?
They were the most famous ones, because they were the most commercial ones.
They were to the 60's like Poison was to the 80's.
Stoned all the way.
Quote from: Alatriste on July 12, 2009, 03:10:32 AM
Beatles, no doubt about it.
Yeah, in Spain, were Baron Rojo and Angeles Del Infierno are the only bands worth listening to.
Definitely the Beatles, only before the drug laced Sgt Pepper era, though.
The Stones are only popular because their fans are alive. This vote would've been more interesting with The Who as a third option.
Although I'd take Sam Cooke, Aretha, The Four Tops or Martha & The Vandellas over any of that loud crap in a heartbeat.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2009, 05:49:34 AM
Definitely the Beatles, only before the drug laced Sgt Pepper era, though.
The Stones are only popular because their fans are alive. This vote would've been more interesting with The Who as a third option.
Although I'd take Sam Cooke, Aretha, The Four Tops or Martha & The Vandellas over any of that loud crap in a heartbeat.
You are gheyer than Garbonite.
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 05:57:34 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2009, 05:49:34 AM
Definitely the Beatles, only before the drug laced Sgt Pepper era, though.
The Stones are only popular because their fans are alive. This vote would've been more interesting with The Who as a third option.
Although I'd take Sam Cooke, Aretha, The Four Tops or Martha & The Vandellas over any of that loud crap in a heartbeat.
You are gheyer than Garbonite.
No, just blacker than you. Which is a pretty big feat in itself, dune coon.
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 05:29:51 AM
They were the most famous ones, because they were the most commercial ones.
They were to the 60's like Poison was to the 80's.
:blink:
Popularity-wise, they'd have been like Michael Jackson in the 80s. Musically, I have no idea who the analog would be, but definitely not a faux metal ballad band.
Beatles over stones, but have to agree Sam and Otis and Stax over them all.
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:05:24 AM
Beatles over stones, but have to agree Sam and Otis and Stax over them all.
Hey, let's make a road trip to The Dexter Lake Club.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 12, 2009, 06:09:33 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:05:24 AM
Beatles over stones, but have to agree Sam and Otis and Stax over them all.
Hey, let's make a road trip to The Dexter Lake Club.
:lol:
Number 1 reason why old Stones > Beatles:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fyadanukiza.com%2Fblog%2Fmedia%2F1%2FRollingStones-PaintItBlack40.jpg&hash=63f133033f4e667eba84d711a6b93c07d34b6f84)
Damn Bavarian knaves.
Also, Casino wouldn't be as good a movie if all the Stones songs would be replaced with Beatles ones.
Quote from: Syt on July 12, 2009, 06:20:46 AM
Also, Casino wouldn't be as good a movie if all the Stones songs would be replaced with Beatles ones.
Indeed. Good point.
that's it, i'm kicking your ass and force feeding you bacon, damn dirty heeb :hug:
Also, that movie in which Angelina Jolie plays a reporter that gets high and sings Satisfaction on a worker's strike.
Oops, I found it. Its called "Life or something like it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-hi_750s0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-hi_750s0)
Damn: "YouTube is down for maintenance and will be back shortly. "
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:33:14 AM
that's it, i'm kicking your ass and force feeding you bacon, damn dirty heeb :hug:
You can kick my ass all you want, but if you bacon me, I will file an EO complaint against you.
Who's NCOIC of Equal Oportunity over here?
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 06:36:33 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:33:14 AM
that's it, i'm kicking your ass and force feeding you bacon, damn dirty heeb :hug:
You can kick my ass all you want, but if you bacon me, I will file an EO complaint against you.
Who's NCOIC of Equal Oportunity over here?
you are looking at em ^_^
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:37:26 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 06:36:33 AM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:33:14 AM
that's it, i'm kicking your ass and force feeding you bacon, damn dirty heeb :hug:
You can kick my ass all you want, but if you bacon me, I will file an EO complaint against you.
Who's NCOIC of Equal Oportunity over here?
you are looking at em ^_^
:bleeding:
What happened to the separation of powers?
Why are the Executive, Judicial, and Legislative powers here in Languish in the same hands?
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 06:33:42 AM
Also, that movie in which Angelina Jolie plays a reporter that gets high and sings Satisfaction on a worker's strike.
Oops, I found it. Its called "Life or something like it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-hi_750s0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-hi_750s0)
Damn: "YouTube is down for maintenance and will be back shortly. "
That was a terrible movie, why are you reminding us?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2009, 06:44:34 AM
Quote from: Siege on July 12, 2009, 06:33:42 AM
Also, that movie in which Angelina Jolie plays a reporter that gets high and sings Satisfaction on a worker's strike.
Oops, I found it. Its called "Life or something like it".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-hi_750s0 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vw-hi_750s0)
Damn: "YouTube is down for maintenance and will be back shortly. "
That was a terrible movie, why are you reminding us?
What are you talking about?
Its the only movie Angelina Jolie has ever done that I actually liked it.
Beatles for sheer versatility and consistency. Stones are great when they're on-mark, but a lot of their stuff that isn't makes me go :bleeding:
Hard question to answer.
The Beatles are too overdone in the modern world. Their music is just typical background stuff everywhere ever since you're a kid so that when you get to a age when you really can appreciate music their stuff is just not as appealing as it would otherwise be.
The Stones do have this to a slight extent but nowhere near as much as the Beatles do.
I must root for the underdog given no other strong feelings and go Stones.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2009, 06:44:34 AM
That was a terrible movie, why are you reminding us?
:yes:
It was a very bad movie.
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:05:24 AM
Beatles over stones, but have to agree Sam and Otis and Stax over them all.
If you ever end up in Memphis, the Stax Museum is definitely worth checking out. I spent about 5 hours there. They've even got Isaac Hayes's powder blue Eldorado Cadillac perpetually rotating on display!
Beatles!
And the fact they decided the run was over and split up when they were just around 27 amazes me every time I think about it: I don't know what they could do if they went on for some more time.
L.
Happiness is two things: a warm gun, and never having hear Angie again.
I see all the euro guys over here prefer the Beat-less.
I'm not a huge fan of either but between the two I much prefer the Beatles.
Beatles, even the experimentation. They led the pack, others tried to make music like they did.
write in vote for Bob Dylan.
Go punch a punching bag.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 12, 2009, 05:22:19 PM
write in vote for Bob Dylan.
I'm trying to build my Dylan collection up. After 30 some years of hating his stuff, I've suddenly started liking it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 12, 2009, 05:28:17 PM
I'm trying to build my Dylan collection up. After 30 some years of hating his stuff, I've suddenly started liking it.
OMG, Sulla has retired to his estates to engage in orgies and Dylan parties!
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 12, 2009, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 12, 2009, 05:22:19 PM
write in vote for Bob Dylan.
I'm trying to build my Dylan collection up. After 30 some years of hating his stuff, I've suddenly started liking it.
I guess you have to be a miserable old bastard to appreciate it. Luckily I achieved that status some 30 years ago :yeah:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 12, 2009, 05:31:11 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 12, 2009, 05:28:17 PM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 12, 2009, 05:22:19 PM
write in vote for Bob Dylan.
I'm trying to build my Dylan collection up. After 30 some years of hating his stuff, I've suddenly started liking it.
I guess you have to be a miserable old bastard to appreciate it. Luckily I achieved that status some 30 years ago :yeah:
:D
I like to play
Love Sick really, really loud. Then follow it up with either
House Carpenter or
All along the watchtower.
Quote from: PDH on July 12, 2009, 05:29:59 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 12, 2009, 05:28:17 PM
I'm trying to build my Dylan collection up. After 30 some years of hating his stuff, I've suddenly started liking it.
OMG, Sulla has retired to his estates to engage in orgies and Dylan parties!
And Bluegrass.
Stones of course. their creative rock peak was incredible. and they still put on a good show.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 12, 2009, 12:55:53 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 12, 2009, 06:05:24 AM
Beatles over stones, but have to agree Sam and Otis and Stax over them all.
If you ever end up in Memphis, the Stax Museum is definitely worth checking out. I spent about 5 hours there. They've even got Isaac Hayes's powder blue Eldorado Cadillac perpetually rotating on display!
sadly my last visit to Memphis was too brief, was on road trip with tricky dick and along with am scip stopped for ribs and met his parents.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on July 12, 2009, 02:46:19 AM
The Kinks! :bowler:
Good choice.
I've moved all over the place on this but I have to go for the Beatles in the end. I'd take their music to a desert island but I'd rather see the Stones live, at their peak.
They have been flatlining for 40 years. At least Beatles knew when to pull the plug.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 12, 2009, 05:22:19 PM
write in vote for Bob Dylan Seger.
Edited to display real musical talent. Dylan writes okay, but for some reason, he thinks that he can sing, and that sets him back more than a few points. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 12, 2009, 08:39:05 PM
Edited to display real musical talent. Dylan writes okay, but for some reason, he thinks that he can sing, and that sets him back more than a few points. :contract:
Dylan has written some great songs, but when his voice was at its peak one could only charitably call it "awful."
Quote from: garbon on July 12, 2009, 12:15:39 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 12, 2009, 06:44:34 AM
That was a terrible movie, why are you reminding us?
:yes:
It was a very bad movie.
They filmed a bit of that film down the block from my house.
My room mate took a beer down and wandered amongst the teamsters and was actually reprimanded for drinking on the job by some stooge
More a fan of the Stones, but the Beatles also had some great songs...
I just wish Jagger & co knew when it's time to quit the business.
Dylan
Quote from: grumbler on July 12, 2009, 11:02:04 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on July 12, 2009, 08:39:05 PM
Edited to display real musical talent. Dylan writes okay, but for some reason, he thinks that he can sing, and that sets him back more than a few points. :contract:
Dylan has written some great songs, but when his voice was at its peak one could only charitably call it "awful."
Meh, his voice may not have fit the classic definition of being "good", I think most of his songs would not be anywhere near as poignant with a "good"/smooth voice.
listen to Nashville Skyline for Dylan's "I quit smoking" voice; it's fuller, rounder and should be actually considered singing.
To compare the Stones to Beatles is like comparing Cimarosa to Mozart. Sure, Cimarosa was famous in his day and all, but it's Mozart we remember today.
Quote from: Threviel on July 13, 2009, 09:28:00 AM
To compare the Stones to Beatles is like comparing Cimarosa to Mozart. Sure, Cimarosa was famous in his day and all, but it's Mozart we remember today.
The Stones have hardly sunk into obscurity in popular culture.
when I saw the Stones, their take on Sympathy for the Devil was among the best I had ever heard. If they had stopped touring, it would have been a loss. I don't understand why musicians are apparently required to stop playing music.
Paul McCartney played Halifax last weekend to 50K people. Largely oldies including "Give Peace a Chance." Go hate on him. ;)
Wings :bleeding:
The Beatles; I do love a lot of the Stone's music but they had some serious misfires along the way. For instance:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_7UtsHILCWC8%2FSMYF7y1DboI%2FAAAAAAAAAT4%2FOL3moPWsQ08%2FS1600-R%2FThe_ROLLING_STONES_H_Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request_Image.jpg&hash=4e668f945091de8b7342ca6e0db69ad456964574)
Quote from: Savonarola on July 13, 2009, 01:24:10 PM
The Beatles; I do love a lot of the Stone's music but they had some serious misfires along the way. For instance:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_7UtsHILCWC8%2FSMYF7y1DboI%2FAAAAAAAAAT4%2FOL3moPWsQ08%2FS1600-R%2FThe_ROLLING_STONES_H_Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request_Image.jpg&hash=4e668f945091de8b7342ca6e0db69ad456964574)
Jagger is a level 10 dork.
Quote from: Warspite on July 13, 2009, 11:04:24 AM
Wings :bleeding:
Band on the Run has a lot of great tracks on it.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 13, 2009, 03:39:09 PM
Quote from: Savonarola on July 13, 2009, 01:24:10 PM
The Beatles; I do love a lot of the Stone's music but they had some serious misfires along the way. For instance:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_7UtsHILCWC8%2FSMYF7y1DboI%2FAAAAAAAAAT4%2FOL3moPWsQ08%2FS1600-R%2FThe_ROLLING_STONES_H_Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request_Image.jpg&hash=4e668f945091de8b7342ca6e0db69ad456964574)
Jagger is a level 10 dork.
with a +3 magic Wizard's hat, to boot.
Quote from: Warspite on July 13, 2009, 09:50:02 AM
Quote from: Threviel on July 13, 2009, 09:28:00 AM
To compare the Stones to Beatles is like comparing Cimarosa to Mozart. Sure, Cimarosa was famous in his day and all, but it's Mozart we remember today.
The Stones have hardly sunk into obscurity in popular culture.
Give them time. They will be the Cimarosa to Beatle's Mozart.
Quote from: citizen k on July 13, 2009, 10:42:41 PM
Give them time. They will be the Cimarosa to Beatle's Mozart.
In Mozart's day, no performing artist's fame lasted past living memory. I don't think the Beatles would be the Mozarts of their day purely on composition.
Quote from: Savonarola on July 13, 2009, 01:24:10 PM
The Beatles; I do love a lot of the Stone's music but they had some serious misfires along the way. For instance:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_7UtsHILCWC8%2FSMYF7y1DboI%2FAAAAAAAAAT4%2FOL3moPWsQ08%2FS1600-R%2FThe_ROLLING_STONES_H_Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request_Image.jpg&hash=4e668f945091de8b7342ca6e0db69ad456964574)
hey! that LP was a major influence on Hawkwind!
we need a :stonehedge: smilie.
I can't believe the Beat-less are winning.
Languish disappoints me once again.
Quote from: Warspite on July 11, 2009, 06:15:29 PM
Jagger & co all the way, for me.
See, if they had died tragically in an air crash around 1977, I'd agree. After the
Steel Wheelchairs tour, I'm willing tolerate Ringo and George Harrison's solo material and still come out with Beatles way ahead.
Quote from: Norgy on July 16, 2009, 04:17:41 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 11, 2009, 06:15:29 PM
Jagger & co all the way, for me.
See, if they had died tragically in an air crash around 1977, I'd agree. After the Steel Wheelchairs tour, I'm willing tolerate Ringo and George Harrison's solo material and still come out with Beatles way ahead.
I don't buy that argument, because no one forces me to listen to the crap. The fact is I can stick a 60s-early 70s Stone compilation in my stereo and it will be legendary. The later stuff need not cloud their earlier achievement.
Quote from: Norgy on July 16, 2009, 04:17:41 AM
See, if they had died tragically in an air crash around 1977, I'd agree.
1981 would have been the ideal time for the Stones to cash it in (or at least stop making studio albums); Tattoo You is a fine album.
QuoteAfter the Steel Wheelchairs tour, I'm willing tolerate Ringo and George Harrison's solo material and still come out with Beatles way ahead.
How about if you include Paul's "Silly Love Songs." :P
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 07:02:49 AM
I don't buy that argument, because no one forces me to listen to the crap. The fact is I can stick a 60s-early 70s Stone compilation in my stereo and it will be legendary. The later stuff need not cloud their earlier achievement.
See, that is how you define it, but the fact is that for some the basic idea that the Stones have been around making schlock brain-dead albums and insipid tours for the past 30 years cheapens them overall for others.
If your question was "in their heydays, who was better?" then perhaps less argument.
Jethro Tull is better.
Quote from: PDH on July 16, 2009, 08:52:45 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 07:02:49 AM
I don't buy that argument, because no one forces me to listen to the crap. The fact is I can stick a 60s-early 70s Stone compilation in my stereo and it will be legendary. The later stuff need not cloud their earlier achievement.
See, that is how you define it, but the fact is that for some the basic idea that the Stones have been around making schlock brain-dead albums and insipid tours for the past 30 years cheapens them overall for others.
If your question was "in their heydays, who was better?" then perhaps less argument.
Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 09:10:48 AM
Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? :rolleyes:
Enriched soil.
Fun fact: Mick Jagger's last (only?) solo album sold 50 copies world wide.
Depends on exactly what the question is. If it's, "Who had more influence on popular music and culture?" then clerarly the correct answer is the Beatles. But if the question is, "Whose music do you like better?" then I'd go with the Stones, though not by a large margin (and I liked The Who better than either).
Hard to say. Maybe the Beatles, although I like Dylan better than either.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 09:24:09 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 09:10:48 AM
Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? :rolleyes:
Enriched soil.
Fun fact: Mick Jagger's last (only?) solo album sold 50 copies world wide.
Did it include the raping of Martha & The Vandellas' "Dancing In The Street" with him and Bowie in hip & cool 80s overcoats?
Quote from: Norgy on July 17, 2009, 10:32:51 AM
Did it include the raping of Martha & The Vandellas' "Dancing In The Street" with him and Bowie in hip & cool 80s overcoats?
Yi's statement made me curious, so I did a quick search. Jagger's first solo album which was released in the 80s made it to #6 on the chart. His fourth album which was from around 2001 only sold 950 copies the first day. I didn't find anything about any more after that.
Anyway, the 60s compilation strikes me as a bit odd.
If anything, Stones had their best 60s album in 1969. The Beatles were starting to just be high on acid around then and released diverse mystery tours and albums.
The Kinks were, in my opinion, much better than the 1960s Rolling Stones, and I'd also give honourable mention to Herman's Hermits and even Gerry & The Pacemakers, despite invading my ears every time some moustached cunt with perm and a red shirt is on the telly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 16, 2009, 09:24:09 AM
Quote from: Warspite on July 16, 2009, 09:10:48 AM
Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? :rolleyes:
Enriched soil.
Fun fact: Mick Jagger's last (only?) solo album sold 50 copies world wide.
usually that only happens because the record company doesn't ship it to stores. a similar thing happened with Joe Strummer's "Earthquake Weather". He was on a world tour in support of the release, and he was in Japan, and the record was not available for sale anyway in the country. then he went to America, and the new record was not in any Tower records. and so on.
Why would a record company do that?