The Beatles fan forum
(3572 views)The Beatles or The Stones, which is it?
For those of us that grew up with the Beatles and the Stones it hardly needs pointing out that they were both an integral part of what we were, where we came from and in many respects what we became. As George Harrison once said, they were "On the front page of everyone's life." Over the years, as various band members disappeared, that page may have become a little dog eared but it has never faded away and for that we, our country and large parts of the world owe them a lasting debt. But now looking back, what's the view? Who turned us round the most, the Fab Four or the Stones?
Replies to this topic...
Unsubscribed VIP said:For;
affect on culture, society and future music - The Beatles,
total b*lls out rock and roll (and how future rock and rollers would act and aspire to) - The Stones
I guess the answer to your question has to be The Beatles due to the afrementioned social affect.
10 September 2008 5:02pm
cheetah_lady1 said:It has got to be the fab four from Liverpool
The Beatles
10 September 2008 6:26pm
littleitalyblogspot said:Quoting: cheetah_lady1
It has got to be the fab four from Liverpool
The Beatles
Tell me why....
10 September 2008 6:28pm
asilem said:sick of this silly comparison. it goes nowhere.
10 September 2008 6:29pm
littleitalyblogspot said:Quoting: ajwcoleman
For;
affect on culture, society and future music - The Beatles,
total b*lls out rock and roll (and how future rock and rollers would act and aspire to) - The Stones
I guess the answer to your question has to be The Beatles due to the afrementioned social affect.
Yeah the social, cultural thing is interesting. Do you think they changed us as a country?
10 September 2008 6:29pm
littleitalyblogspot said:Quoting: asilem
sick of this silly comparison. it goes nowhere.
You're right. On the one hand it goes nowhere but then again on the other where would we be without them and others of that generation? Oasis and Blur drew the same comparisons but socially, in comparison, they were insignificant.
10 September 2008 6:33pm
killick829_btinternet_com said:The beatles and the Stones are both examples of pure musical genius, but who is the best?
In my opinion The Beatles for their lyrical abilities, but The Stones for their showmanship and draw dropping guitar rifts from the man hiself keith richards.
I'm going to have to go for the stones, beatles, stones, beatles, no sorry cannot decide, its a toughy and love both legendry groups the same.
x x x
10 September 2008 7:47pm
martin93john said:Quoting: killick829_btinternet_com
The beatles and the Stones are both examples of pure musical genius, but who is the best?
In my opinion The Beatles for their lyrical abilities, but The Stones for their showmanship and draw dropping guitar rifts from the man hiself keith richards.
I'm going to have to go for the stones, beatles, stones, beatles, no sorry cannot decide, its a toughy and love both legendry groups the same.
x x x
i mean it's not like john,paul,or george could'nt play guitar and ringo was almost as good a drummer as john bonham.................................................
the beatles could do any sub-genre well (ballsy-rock,ballad,60s be-bop) where as the stones always stayed within the comfort zone within comparison...
the stones in their early years wore suits like the beatles.... and for that i'm going to go with the beatles
.............................................................................
if you ask someone to name a 60s band 70% would say beatles
10 September 2008 8:00pm
martin93john said:Quoting: killick829_btinternet_com
The beatles and the Stones are both examples of pure musical genius, but who is the best?
In my opinion The Beatles for their lyrical abilities, but The Stones for their showmanship and draw dropping guitar rifts from the man hiself keith richards.
I'm going to have to go for the stones, beatles, stones, beatles, no sorry cannot decide, its a toughy and love both legendry groups the same.
x x x
i mean it's not like john,paul,or george could'nt play guitar and ringo was almost as good a drummer as john bonham.................................................
the beatles could do any sub-genre well (ballsy-rock,ballad,60s be-bop) where as the stones always stayed within the comfort zone within comparison...
the stones in their early years wore suits like the beatles.... and for that i'm going to go with the beatles
.............................................................................
if you ask someone to name a 60s band 70% would say beatles
10 September 2008 8:00pm
martin93john said:Quoting: killick829_btinternet_com
The beatles and the Stones are both examples of pure musical genius, but who is the best?
In my opinion The Beatles for their lyrical abilities, but The Stones for their showmanship and draw dropping guitar rifts from the man hiself keith richards.
I'm going to have to go for the stones, beatles, stones, beatles, no sorry cannot decide, its a toughy and love both legendry groups the same.
x x x
i mean it's not like john,paul,or george could'nt play guitar and ringo was almost as good a drummer as john bonham.................................................
the beatles could do any sub-genre well (ballsy-rock,ballad,60s be-bop) where as the stones always stayed within the comfort zone within comparison...
the stones in their early years wore suits like the beatles.... and for that i'm going to go with the beatles
.............................................................................
if you ask someone to name a 60s band 70% would say beatles
10 September 2008 8:00pm
Sorry, you have to be an Absolute Radio VIP to post topics or replies on this forum. Why not
log-in or
sign-up for free to get loads more access to Absolute Radio.
The Beatles biography
The Beatles were an English rock band, formed in Liverpool in 1960 and one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed acts in the... more Musical Connections
If you like The Beatles you might also like: