The Beatles Or The Stones?

[Anais Dahl]

I was having this conversation with my husband today. Which band was more important to the evolution of rock and roll?

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Why?

I will give my opinion later.

 

[Roy Batty]

Beatles Suck, go STONES.

 

[Guest]

 

[Black_Bird]

I can't stand the Stones.

Beatles.

 

[Guest]

 

[Guest]

 

[Black_Bird]

Wanna fight about it?

Cos I'm in a down and dirty mood

You know you'd just let me win...

... and then I'd spank you, and then you would tell me that you still won, and then I'd spank you some more - it would just be a waste of time for both of us. Instead, lets just skip all that and get to the good part... how many?

 

[mig]

Like the Stones,but

Jagger is sooo ugly.

 

[horny_giraffe]

I was having this conversation with my husband today. Which band was more important to the evolution of rock and roll?

The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Why?

I will give my opinion later.

I think I could underestimate the power of the Stones--they did have a lot of popular songs. But were they ever "bigger than Jesus?" There's no denying the popularity of the Beatles.

It's like the debate over the originality of Elvis Presley. The reality is that Elvis and the Beatles were both more popular than the people they "stole" their act from. As such, I suspect that they had a bigger influence on the Zeitgeist and therefore the evolution of rock and roll.

 

[Johnny Cool]

Depends

I'd say the emphasis on Bluesy Rock the Stones had has probably had more trickle down effect(That is more bands today use stuff that the stones did than the beatles did.) more bands are Stones-esque than they are Beatles-esque.

That being said I think that, mainly, is because the Beatles were so much better than the Stones. They were unique, you couldn't really be a Beatles-inspired band because you'd always come up so short in comparison.

So if the question is who was a better band the answer is the Beatles and it's not a difficulut decision at all.

The Stones probably influenced more musicians to play like they did.

But in terms of influence on modern music both pale in comparison to the Kinks. Without a doubt the most influential band of the invasion.


(Side note: Can we all agree that Keith Richards was the driving force of the stones? It's all about the riffs. Don't agree? Here's a test. Put on Start me up and make up your own lyrics. I guarantee you'll think it's just as good)

 

[Johnny Cool]

Re: Re: The Beatles Or The Stones?

I think I could underestimate the power of the Stones--they did have a lot of popular songs. But were they ever "bigger than Jesus?" There's no denying the popularity of the Beatles.

It's like the debate over the originality of Elvis Presley. The reality is that Elvis and the Beatles were both more popular than the people they "stole" their act from. As such, I suspect that they had a bigger influence on the Zeitgeist and therefore the evolution of rock and roll.

That doesn't really apply to the Beatles. As much as their early stuff was inspired by early rock and roll, they didn't steal any of their important music from anybody. Who did Revolver rip off?

 

[horny_giraffe]

I'm not familar with Revolver.

I put "stole" in quotes because that's what I've heard said--particularly about Elvis. I don't remember much of the details and it's entirely possible that I connected The Beatles and Elvis in my mind because they came from a similar time period. In Elvis' case, I remember words to the effect of "co-opting the style of rhythm and blues"--not actual lyrics and riffs, per se. And frankly, no matter which group you pick, somebody is always going to claim that they are derivative, anyway--as if authenticity were the only measure of quality.

Personally, I prefer the harmonies of the Beatles to the bluesey sound--as you say--of the Stones. I never liked the Blues.

 

[Johnny Cool]

I'm not familar with Revolver.

I put "stole" in quotes because that's what I've heard said--particularly about Elvis. I don't remember much of the details and it's entirely possible that I connected The Beatles and Elvis in my mind because they came from a similar time period. In Elvis' case, I remember words to the effect of "co-opting the style of rhythm and blues"--not actual lyrics and riffs, per se. And frankly, no matter which group you pick, somebody is always going to claim that they are derivative, anyway--as if authenticity were the only measure of quality.

Really? I've always thought Revolver was the Beatle's best album. It had Yellow Submarine, I'm Only Sleeping, Taxman, Elenor Rigby. It's really a classic from start to finish.

I think some early Beatles stuff is, to a degree, derivitive but their later stuff is very, very original.

 

[bigjacknyc]

But in terms of influence on modern music both pale in comparison to the Kinks. Without a doubt the most influential band of the invasion.

Very interesting Johnny Cool. Won't debate the opinion till you've explained this a little more. I'm a big Beatles fan (they're 2nd only to Britney, of course) but I also like the Kinks a lot so I'm interested to hear more. Maybe I'll agree.

 

[Guest]

Lennon.

Jagger sucks.

 

[Johnny Cool]

Very interesting Johnny Cool. Won't debate the opinion till you've explained this a little more. I'm a big Beatles fan (they're 2nd only to Britney, of course) but I also like the Kinks a lot so I'm interested to hear more. Maybe I'll agree.

For all intents and porpoises they invented distortion. Nuff said.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Re: Depends

I'd say the emphasis on Bluesy Rock the Stones had has probably had more trickle down effect(That is more bands today use stuff that the stones did than the beatles did.) more bands are Stones-esque than they are Beatles-esque.

That being said I think that, mainly, is because the Beatles were so much better than the Stones. They were unique, you couldn't really be a Beatles-inspired band because you'd always come up so short in comparison.

So if the question is who was a better band the answer is the Beatles and it's not a difficulut decision at all.

The Stones probably influenced more musicians to play like they did.

But in terms of influence on modern music both pale in comparison to the Kinks. Without a doubt the most influential band of the invasion.


(Side note: Can we all agree that Keith Richards was the driving force of the stones? It's all about the riffs. Don't agree? Here's a test. Put on Start me up and make up your own lyrics. I guarantee you'll think it's just as good)

This pretty much says it all. I agree with every word of it.

Next topic?

 

[Johnny Cool]

Re: Re: Depends

This pretty much says it all. I agree with every word of it.

Next topic?

Actually, I'd revise it a little. The Stones "influence" is really just the influence of the Blues and white English boys shouldn't get the credit for the Blues.

 

[sexy-girl]

i think beatles were and are a huge influence (especially english bands) i love the stones and the beatles but i would say beatles were way more talented and more influential although keith richards is a great blues guitarist


P.S who was the better blues guitarist keith richards or eric clapton

 

[Johnny Cool]

i think beatles were and are a huge influence (especially english bands) i love the stones and the beatles but i would say beatles were way more talented and more influential although keith richards is a great blues guitarist


P.S who was the better blues guitarist keith richards or eric clapton

Well neither of them are really Blues guitarists. They're rock guitarists with blues influences.

But Clapton is probably a more technically accomplished guitarist. Even if he is the Pat Boone of the 70's.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Re: Re: Re: Depends

Actually, I'd revise it a little. The Stones "influence" is really just the influence of the Blues and white English boys shouldn't get the credit for the Blues.

Of course--but what the Stones and Yardbirds and Kinks and even early Beatles were doing is a far cry from Pat Boone.

 

[Johnny Cool]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends

Of course--but what the Stones and Yardbirds and Kinks and even early Beatles were doing is a far cry from Pat Boone.

Yeah, maybe. Sort of.

Still, credit where credit's due. Blues influence comes from Blues guys.

 

[BlueyedTexan]

Beatles Or The Stones?

I guess I would have to say it was the beatles although I personally like the Stones A lot more.

I like what the beatles did as individuals after the break-up.

 

[Hamletmaschine]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends

Yeah, maybe. Sort of.

Still, credit where credit's due. Blues influence comes from Blues guys.

LOL Yeah, sort of.

 

[Dillinger]

This is like the Elton John/Bowie question... in that one you asked who had the most INFLUENCE. You didn't ask who each of us liked better.

Now you ask "Which band was more important to the evolution of rock and roll?" Not which bad we like better.

I can't imagine anyone seriously arguing that the Stones were more important to the evolution of Rock n Roll - hell, the Stones fucking took lessons from the Beatles themselves.