Edit: The Beatles, ofcourse. Hands down. Sort by. But I would go with Let It Bleed as an album. is better than Out of Our Heads. Abbey Road vs. Let It Bleed: I know that Abbey Road is a very very popular and highly regarded album, but there's no competition in my eyes; Let It Bleed is another flawless album. vs. Out Of Our Heads: This is where it gets tough for me, personally - as Help! Plus, it's all originals. I applaud you for the time put in but I can’t make comparisons between the two. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Mick and Keith are a sorry bunch of hypocrites that never got over The Beatles' succes. The collection includes images of The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Billy Fury. report. Mick Jagger Offered His Take on the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones Debate "One band is, unbelievably luckily, still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn’t exist." Both were “pop” (i.e. Quite simply, it changed popular music forever - not much else to be said. Mick Jagger is amused whenever Paul McCartney insists The Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones, because he is adamant there is no comparison. The Stones were rivals at the time according to the Press. This decision is very hard for me because I love "Gimme Shelter," "Let It Bleed," "Live with Me," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want." The Rolling Stones were a great blues band. By Gabrielle Bruney So far: The Beatles 1 - 3 The Rolling Stones. Keef just had way more riffs and Mick is better frontman than either John or Paul combined. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. My copy is a plain album sleeve and vinyl record. Stones. The beatles were a pop band that did some rock, but they were not really a rock band. The White Album vs. Beggars Banquet: Another hard one. What’s your guy’s opinion? It's just down to personal preference. Your the biggest single was Hey Jude of the Beatles, with 53.6 percent on Honky Tonk Women – again. Aftermath: This is maybe the easiest one for me. The Beatles wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits with the song I … Now everyone is copying us”. I like the humor in their songs, musically and lyrically, intentional or not. While Wolfe captures the essence of the appeal of the two bands, the stories Outstanding, the author engaged me right from the start with the anecdote about Paul McCartney upstaging Mick Jagger at Jagger's birthday party. However, I recently realised that I haven't actually spent as much time exploring The Stones outside of their hits. Rarely seen photographs of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in the 1960s have been discovered in a box that lay unopened for 25 years. The Beatles Were Much Better..... 0 comments. Interesting analysis. The Beatles will always have a special place in my heart though, and I do prefer them but musically, all you have to do is listen to Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sympathy for the Devil and Gimme Shelter to realise that they were on another level. Peppers also has it's misses (some big ones), but I do think it's more well structured and more concise. I wouldn't really change any of my rankings though, to be honest. Stones just have more firepower, and better songs. The Beatles never had the type of run of classic albums that the Stones had. View Entire Discussion (0 Comments) ... help Reddit App Reddit coins Reddit premium Reddit gifts. I speak for most in saying that Octopus's Garden is one of the Beatles' most underrated songs, certainly not the weakest song on the first side of Abbey Road. Probably Beatles even though the Stones are better bar music. The battle between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones has been going on ever since they first crossed paths on the charts almost 50 years ago. The Beatles really maintained a good guy image, whereas the Stones were one of the first bad boy bands, which was more modeled throughout rock history afterwards and was crucial to the genre. I thought that summed it up. Audience Characteristics of Beatles vs Rolling Stones Fans in the United States With the Stones kicking off a U.S. tour this spring, I decided to take an in-depth look at the audience characteristics of Beatles vs Rolling Stones fans in the United States, and what makes them both tick. I have to say that Out Of Our Heads is much better, though. Style: Classic Rock, Pop Rock. They rocked harder than the beatles. There weren't any Stones albums to compare them to. The original songs on For Sale are pretty good, but its many boring covers drag it down. The age-old question is one that has entertained music fans for decades, and McCartney recently reignited the debate by claiming the Fab Four’s wider appeal made them the superior group. Both Stones records have very good songs on them, but also a lot of... filler, frankly - if they'd cut those songs out and compiled the good ones from both on one single album, then this may have been another story. Husband and wife Stan and Betty Mallett, from Exeter, took the photographs whenever famous names visited Devon. In that short nine years from 1962 to 1970, The Beatles wrote about 250 songs. “The big difference is that the Rolling Stones have been quite a big concert band in other decades and eras, [whereas] the Beatles never even did an arena tour,” said Jagger. When they were knighted they kept theirs. Even their individual contributions were revolutionary. Helter Skelter not as intense and dramatic? So the real question is whether any rock band comes close to … The two are just so similar and so different at the same time. A Hard Day's Night is their first solid, cohesive work - and it's very good. And I mean, come on... side 1 has Octopus's Garden - give me a break. Beatles changed pop culture forever, but were only around for 8 years and have almost no decent live recordings to speak of, not their fault, but still. Lucy in the sky, A Day In The Life & She's Leaving Home are the highlights for me .... Satanic Majesties had more highlights. Oh yeah, for sure. While I enjoy Their Satanic Majesties Request, I certainly like Sgt. Not only do they have a longer run of classic records, I’d also always take Mick‘s dancing over anything the Beatles could ever do. View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2014 CD release of The Beatles VS The Rolling Stones on Discogs. Many Progressive rock and psychedelic tunes of the 60s sound different as it progressed. What has lasted over time with the Stones are not actually the recordings they made to directly compete with the Beatles such as their answer to Peppers, I can't remember what it was called, but their unique sound that wasn't influenced by this Press directed … Objectively it could be either, but to me, the Stones' debut is a much more entertaining listen. Focusing on material from 1967 forward, the two greatest bands of all time put on a dynamic live show complete with a fantastic encore finale. The Rolling Stones had an edgier reputation than The Beatles Credit: Terry O'Neill - Getty THE Stones have released 30 studio albums, 28 … Be the first to share what you think! Please Please Me / With The Beatles vs. It's acknowledged universally that Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers & Exile on Main Street are classics. That's consistency. The highs on Help! . Sgt. I really disagree, I've never liked it at all. Still, this survey may surprise even the most loyal fans of both bands. Pure quality. Later Lennon would refute Jagger’s memory of how the Stones’ came to release the track, detailing in The Beatles Anthology that the band had already recorded the track for themselves but decided they would never release the song as a single and, in turn, offered it up to Jagger and the Stones.. Log in or sign up to leave a comment Log In Sign Up. Beatles. has the likes of "Help! The ’69 Concert re-imagines the end of the 60’s as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones agree to perform a one-time live concert together. Different bands that went in a different direction. I can see both sides of the augment, but I gotta say the Beatles. Please Please Me / With The Beatles vs. But to each their own. are as great, some of them better than the ones on Out Of Our Heads, but side 2 is mostly comprised of duds - while Out Of Our Heads is great pretty much all the way through, except for a couple of short songs on side 1. Let It Bleed's weakest moment is Country Honk, but I'd still much rather listen to that. But so many of the other songs on it sound samey and bland, and the record gets boring very quickly. You see, for decades warring pub factions have mistakenly assumed that The Beatles vs The Stones was a question of attitude. I never liked Sgt. Sir Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones are rock icons, still rocking it out to this day. I personally would disagree with you on a few of the rankings. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, Press J to jump to the feed. Both feature some of my favourite songs of all time and are great works, but ultimately The White Album is held down by some of its weaker detours, at least when it comes to comparing it to Beggars Banquet - which is the Stones' grand return to rock n' roll in peak shape. The classics on the album are great. A Hard Day's Night vs. 12 X 5 / No. The Stones were modelled after the Beatles, not the other way around (even old fart Keith acknowledges that). best. . I think they just had a knack for songwriting, even Ringo. Aftermath, on the other hand, is the Stones first truly great album. Rubber Soul vs. Stones were great when they did Blues stuff, their other songs are still very good but they shone with the Blues style. Cookies help us deliver our Services. The Beatles were true artists, creating something new and beautiful. Although I used to own a vinyl picture album of the Stones that was just interviews and when Brian was asked the question “what do you think when people compare you to The Beatles ?” He replied “well when The Beatles first came out everyone was copying them. The Rolling Stones: The Beatles had a 2-album head start on the Stones, and while the Beatles debut has a lot of originals and the Stones' does not, they completely nail the covers on theirs - whereas the Beatles covers often sound sort of... dull. Rubber Soul is, in my opinion, one of the most overrated Beatles records. Pepper's, when in fact it isn't like that at all The album covers may be similar, but the music is not. no comments yet. I'll grant that The Rolling Stones could be considered better than Please Please Me and With the Beatles (although I personally feel like the Beatles' first two records have more iconic songs on them, like "Love Me Do," "I Saw Her Standing There," "Twist and Shout," and "All My Loving"). Both are magnificent bands, after listening to more of the Stones discography I would say the Stones are the better band especially when they have 3 of the best rock albums in history (Exile on Main Street, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers). I love pretty much every song on Rubber Soul except "Run for Your Life" and "What Goes On," and while I do love "Mother's Little Helper," I'd have to grant Rubber Soul the victory. Featured songs are from the iconic albums of the era, including Sgt. Imo, I'll take that bet, Beatles have, what? However, Abbey Road has "Something," "Here Comes the Sun," "Come Together," and the medley, all of which are great in their own right. Beatles’ 5 Boldest Rip-Offs From the “Revolution” intro to the “I Feel Fine” riff, here are five times when the Fab Four swiped musical material from their influences I feel like it was the true segue between “bubble gum pop Beatles” and “experimental rock n roll Beatles” and something about that sound has always taken me when I hear it. I mean yeah, to each their own. Who’s your favorite and why? hide. Stones have Let it Bleed, Exile on Main St (almost a double album) Beggers Banquet, Sticky Fingers, and if we're being generous, Goats head soup. I'd also rank The White Album over Beggars Banquet. Now! Start bidding or selling at Catawiki’s Music Auction (The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones). That's fair enough, it's a good album. They’re both great bands, but I definitely prefer the Stones. 2: I have to give it to The Beatles here. However, I do think that Yellow Submarine gets way too much hate. They are quite dissimilar to me, and so they really defy comparison. Pepper's vs. Their Satanic Majesties Request: Too often Their Satanic Majesties' is dismissed as a lazy ripoff of Sgt. I'll give you 4 reasons. I guess you could argue that the Beatles were better because they had a wider range of styles, but I think it takes even more talent to consistently stick to a great style. I love both bands. share. Side 1 contains Rolling Stones Outtakes and Side 2 is the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show taped on August 14, 1965 and broadcast on September 12, 1965. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones – Beatles VS Rolling Stones Label: Goodays – GVC-002 Format: CD, Compilation Country: Japan Released: Genre: Rock. I'd say that Help! Cookies help us deliver our Services. The Beatles themselves would eventually go on to release it a year … For one night only, join The Good Band and The Honey Sliders as they battle it out live on HOTA’s Outdoor Stage in this music-fuelled slugfest between Britain’s biggest musical powerhouses. The Stones were more important for rock music. Personally I prefer the Rolling Stones, they always seemed more casual than the Beatles did. ", "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away," and "Ticket to Ride," and side 2 has "Yesterday.". Rarely seen photographs of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in the 1960s have been discovered in a box that lay unopened for 25 years. Beatles For Sale vs. And Mick Jagger's onstage antics annoy me, but that's something completely different. The Beatles wrote for the Stones, not the other way around. When I was a kid, I didn't really... get the Stones... then I re-discovered them, and now, evidently, I like them a whole lot more than The Beatles overall. They rocked harder than the beatles. was the first album I ever bought and thus 'holds a special place in my heart'. And when the Rolling Stones came to the United States for the first time, in May 1964, they enlisted a London-based PR firm to create the impression that they were rival with the Beatles. I just did this as a fun 'experiment' because I was bored. For one night only, join The Good Band and The Honey Sliders as they battle it out live on HOTA’s Outdoor Stage in this music-fuelled slugfest between Britain’s biggest musical powerhouses. I know it’s an age old argument and flame war starter, but it’s still neat to hear other people’s opinions. Hey everybody, Here is a needle drop from my collection of a Rolling Stones/Beatles Bootleg I believe is called Battle. That's fair, as I said that one was a really narrow victory for Peppers. More posts from the rollingstones community, Press J to jump to the feed. Songs like Nowhere Man and In My Life are stunning, to name a few. Finally, I'd rank Abbey Road above Let It Bleed. Overall, I enjoy the other songs on Abbey Road (I actually like "Octopus's Garden") more than the other songs on Let It Bleed (I'm not a huge fan of "Country Honk," for example). Now! popular music bands). The Rolling Stones were REPLICATORS. This seems less so now. Beatles never had anything as intense and dramatic as Gimme Shelter or Paint it black. Discography speaks for itself. functions as sort of a 'best of' of 64-Stones in my opinion, so it gets the win easily. The Rolling Stones: The Beatles had a 2-album head start on the Stones, and while the Beatles debut has a lot of originals and the Stones' does not, they completely nail the covers on theirs - whereas the Beatles covers often sound sort of... dull. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. The Beatles obviously had a bigger cultural impact, but I think when you compare the individual members The Rolling Stones are superior. Peppers I have to admit. So for me i think its a consistant quality versus massive peaks and slight dips. (I skipped MMT, Yellow Submarine and Let It Be, as well as December's Children - just FYI). The old cliche of classic rock dinos doesn't stick with them as they audience always has younger listeners. Stone Cold Steve Austin sits down to answer another question here once again with another classic shoot interview. Beatles changed pop culture forever, but were only around for 8 years and have almost no decent live recordings to speak of, not their fault, but still. Growing up in Merseyside I'm inclined to say the Beatles, they have influenced the evolution of music on a monumental scale. The Stones never did it for me. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. I hope to be there when they play their 60th anniversary shows. I do find the Stones overrated at times, especially since they were around the time the Beatles became famous in America. Really tough comparison. The rougher Beatles. I do agree The Stones win the 60’s though . Pepper's a lot more (it does not have, for instance, several seconds of nothing but the sound of snoring), so for me, that victory isn't slim. I'd also have to rank Rubber Soul above Aftermath. Lol i had this argument with my dad the other day. The Beatles were INNOVATORS. The Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles, and it isn’t really even close. How? Nice analysis. Mick Jagger is a far greater frontman than John or Paul, Keith Richards and Mick Taylor were better guitarists than George, and Charlie Watts is a better drummer than Ringo. It's also much more varied, featuring a mix of their earlier blues sound with Brian Jones' newfound multi-instrumentalist tendencies, creating a very unique sound. They also had a style that stuck with them all through their career, where the Beatles never developed a clear style and just did anything. I like a few songs here and there, but really I just don't get it with The Stones. I thought it'd be fun to compare these two giants' albums and decide for myself which I like better. "The big difference, though, is and sort of slightly seriously, is that the Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when the Beatles … All these are. Which is it for you, the Beatles or The Rolling Stones? I like songs like "Sympathy for the Devil," "Street Fighting Man," and "Jigsaw Puzzle," but overall, the Stones' excursions into blues and country are more palatable to me on their next few albums than they are on their initial back-to-basics excursion. The Beatles vs. Stones are 50+ years of Rock n Roll brilliance. So with three out of five wins, the Beatles triumph. I really love TSMR and I think it should be seen as its own work, and not be set in Peppers shadow as much as it is. By pitting their biggest hits in head-to-head battles. But to each his own :), I agree completely...except the take on Rubber Soul. This week at auction: Paul McCartney - Run Devil Run - Limited box set, Limited edition - 1999/1999. Stones had the deeper catalog IMO. I personally prefer The Beatles. McCartney is my favorite but Mick/Richards > Lennon/Harrison, imo, Stones. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts … The battle between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones has been going on ever since they first crossed paths on the charts almost 50 years ago.