Are The Rolling Stones better than The Beatles?

Thoughts?

Yeah

In what way? Influence? Musicianship? Song writing?

Out of all the big-name British bands from that era, I'd say The Who are "the best" in most regards.

Queen shits on both of them.

Tough call, probably not. If the Stones quit making albums after Exile on Main Street and spent the rest of their career playing live concerts, they would have been the most legendary band. But instead most of what they've put out since 1972 has been dreck.

The Beatles Rubber Soul and Revolver would have made one of the top 3 double albums of all time if they were released together. Their influence is incredible. The Beatles bowed out near the top of their game, and nearly every one of their British releases is great from start to finish, unlike most Stones albums prior to Beggars Banquet and after Exile.

The Stones were better live though, but overall The Beatles win.

lol

?

@uninspiredcup:

Queen wouldn't be around without The Beatles.

Owing a debt to someone or something, doesn't by default they cannot be better.

@uninspiredcup:

Queen isn't and I'm a big fan of Queens middle 70's period, hell I lived through it as a teenager. I think you appreciate the magnitude of The Beatles and Stones when you lived through those times.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I hate the Beatles.

I don't think either are as great as everyone seems to think... I'm not big into music in general though.

I used to not like the Beetles. Strawberry Fields is amazing though. I remember someone was shocked (the only time I shocked someone) when I told them I did not like the Beetles.

Do you hate they are popular and very mainstream or does the sound of their music hurl you into a fit of rage?

To answer the question I would be hard pressed to pick one. Both have their hits. My favorite band is Steve Miller Band whom are fairly popular. That band > Beetles and the Rolling Stones imo.

When I was younger my dad showed me a lot of the great classic rock music. Although he likes country music too which is alright I guess but not as good as classic rock.

It has become trendy to hate Bob Dylan too supposedly unfortunately right?

+1 for an excellent argument. I'm not taking a side between these bands, but the idea that someone did something first so they automatically win the who did it better argument is incredibly baseless.

Objectively you probably can argue Freddie Mercury sing better than any Beatles as well as Brain May playing a guitar better than any of them. With songs it's probably more subjective. Personally I like the big ballots Queen does better.

I watched a few Beatles Live videos and they sort of suck at times. John Lennon in particular sucked live.

Compare that to our man Freddy - and that was live aid, in which he sang for hours on end, you can see the sweat pissing from him.

i dislike all three bands mentioned in this thread with a passion. well, i dislike The Rolling Stones much less than the other two, so if i had to choose one it would be them.

Stones aren't even close to as good as Beatles, imo.

Beatles seem to single-handedly keep oldies stations alive.

I really dont like the beatles,

Love the stones.

The Beatles, hands down.

**** no, the Rolling Stones did not play songs with Che Guevara.

They are better than the early Beatles

If you like pretentious music.

It's opinion really. Both bands were important to the development of music. Neither answer is the right answer.

Nothing more pretencous than a millionaire telling you to imagine no possessions.

It's arguably pretentious to try insult someone for liking a certain music when running around with a bunch of 40 year old men with thick eye-liner there faces trying to look right moody.

@Serraph105:

kicker is ....I wasn't arguing, merely stating a fact.

I didn't think Elvis was better than The Beatles, but it's important to keep in mind the influences for them even being around. Get the picture? The Beatles impacted Queen and many many other bands by serving as the springboard for their music. Of course Queen has their own style built upon the Beatles music.

It's debatable which band was more talented. McCartney is a fantastic bassist, Harrison a fine guitarist, Ringo an underrated drummer, and as much as I like Mercury the harmonies and writing (middle and later) of Lennon and McCartney were fantastic.

I think Queen and the Who are better bands :) Say what you will but Freddy Mercury was amazing.

@MlauTheDaft:

Now The Who you could make a case for. On that I would agree but not Queen.

The Who in their prime was clearly better LIVE than The Beatles, and on par or perhaps even better than The Stones live, that's debatable. They were also the most ambitious and adventurous.

The Who IMO was the most talented of any band mentioned in this thread, especially while Keith Moon was on drums. The Beatles were the better studio band, at least until Tommy came out in the latest 60's. But ultimately you can make a case for The Who or Led Zeppelin, the latter band being incredibly popular without the benefit of many singles.

Again though, The Who and The Yardbirds (band that would become Led Zeppelin) wouldn't be around without The Beatles impact. By the way, The Beatles and Bob Dylan created Rock music (which was rock and roll ) in 1965 with a couple album releases, Rubber Soul and Bringing it all Back Home.

Just saying.

Absolutely not.

@AFBrat77: Fair enough :) I'm aware that I have a bias in regards to Queen.

Well, I don't really like the beatles, but at least they've experimented with music while the rolling stones sound the same for 40 years or so.

Oh and Queen = campy musical music. (There's even a musical featuring their music, go figure).
And as weird as this may sound a gay man, I HATE musicals, they're the wrong kind of kitsch.

I can´t stand their music.

A a straight man, who eats only red meat, I think anything even remotely do'able should be turned into a musical.

@uninspiredcup: hahaha lol, that's awesome!

I would'nt have put the Rolling Stones vs The Beatles.I'd put Led Zeppelin vs The Beatles instead.Led Zeppelin is far more talented band in all aspects.AC/DC vs The Rolling Stones would be a better comparison,in my opinion and AC/DC is the better band,also in my opinion.

And?

The Beatles. The albums are great and can generally be listened to without skipping a song. I've never heard of people arguing about which Rolling Stones album is the best.

Yep, this.

For the thread title question, no, Rolling Stones are not better. Beatles definitely has them beat. I like Beatles music way more.

Not sure if its just this forum, surprisingly it seems to have quite a few Beatles haters.

Probably because (Taxi = Harrison the decent of the Beetles guitarist) * XD

Fyi. My activities as LegendaryMatt/DumbDonald were mocking him. Thus when portugal the man made that video implicating gamespot they edited and attempted to delete the evidence.

@judog1:

I very much agree with most of what you said, in fact I had already said all the Beatles British releases were pretty much spotless from beginning to end, whereas Stones albums were often spotty.

However, I think most agree The Stones put out 4 excellent albums in a row from 1968 - 1972, they are:

Beggars Banquet (which should have included Jumping Jack Flash as well)

Let it Bleed (which should have included Honky Tonk Women)

Sticky Fingers (quite possibly their best album)

Exile on Main Street (their sprawling double album)

Those albums were very worthy.

The Stones should have just stuck with being a live band after that. Seems they lost their inspiration in the studio after the rivalry with the Beatles ended. BUT they were always an excellent live band.

I think all are talented in their own ways, but my favorite British male group is the Bee Gees. I love their 80s and 90s material the best. They also wrote great songs for amazing artists like Diana Ross, Dionne Warwick, Barbra Streisand, etc.

you just can't compare sticks n stones... I like both

since 72? really?? the Stones have put out some decent music since 72. AND its some of their most popular as well. YES popular also can equal "good"..

I can hardly stomach the Beatles. They might be music "royalty"...BUT...Stones are far better for my taste..