The Beatles did get edgier, but the Stones have always been dirtier. I remember someone back in the '60s writing to Teen Screen magazine and asking why they didn't cover the Stones. Their reply, "Rolling Stones gather no Teen Screen."

Yeah, that put Mick Jagger in his place.

 

Stones are supposed to be the greatest rock band ever, and that may be so. I do think they are a great band but I stay away from them because too much of their music is lascivious, which is supposed to be what rock music is all about, but not for me.

 

This is my verdict Rolling stones r better , they are still around,

This is an argument AGAINST the Stones. The Beatles were wise not to hang around too long.

 

I think Revolution is the greatest rock song of all time.

Beatles

 

I probably like both equally, and we were fortunate that just as the Beatles were losing their collective will to live by early 1969 the Stones were 12 months into a four/five year purple patch which saw them produce a hefty percentage of their greatest music.

Getting Mick Taylor in to replace Brian Jones was probably the best decision that the Stones made, even if he wasn't their first choice - Keith Richard(s) had a musical chemistry with Taylor that hasn't been there half as much with Ronnie Wood.

 

I like both The Rolling Stones and The Beatles.

But Arcade Fire is my fav.

 

Beatles for me
I think they were far more inventive than the Stones

 

Inventive yes but philosophical... subject to debate. This tome reveals all:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Rolling-Stones-Philosophy-Thought/dp/0812697588

 

The Stones certainly had more attitude than The Beatles, but the latter were more musically skilled and disciplined. The Stones were not an albums band—there was a lot of filler even in their best work. The Velvet Underground would serve as a more suitable comparison with The Beatles, in terms musical accomplishment, talent, and influence.

Another band that would challenge The Stones' alleged supremacy in rock — Led Zeppelin.

 

The Stones certainly had more attitude than The Beatles, but the latter were more musically skilled and disciplined. The Stones were not an albums band-there was a lot of filler even in their best work. The Velvet Underground would serve as a more suitable comparison with The Beatles, in terms musical accomplishment, talent, and influence.

Another band that would challenge The Stones' alleged supremacy in rock - Led Zeppelin.

I definitely agree with that apart from the Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers albums - I just can't hear a weak track on any of those three.

 

The Stones put on a better live show because of Mick Jagger, but The Beatles are my favorite by a fairly wide margin just going on the music. The Beatles put out album after album with hardly any bad songs at all except for stuff on the White Album that wasn't really serious. And they were putting out two albums per year. That's remarkable consistency. No. They didn't keep it up as long. But the legacy they left from that six year period still holds up strong in my opinion. I guess I can see preferring the Stones if you like more hard core or edgier rock music, but I just think Lennon and McCartney (and even Harrison during their late albums) were the better song writers.

 

I prefer the Beatles, they are more to my taste.

 

Even though I didn't listen TRS albums, I prefer The Beatles from Rubber Soul album to Let It Be. I don't care much for their early stuff.
But TRS has some interesting songs too.

 

I like a lot of The Rolling Stones music, but they are not in the same league as bands like The Beatles or Zeppelin. I don't even enjoy much of The Beatles music, but it seems to me they were clearly a lot better. I don't know why people think the bands are really even comparable other than the fact they were contemporaries and both very popular. Popularity has nothing to do with musical quality. The Stones may have been as popular as The Beatles, but they were no where near as consistent, innovative or sophisticated.

 

Mmmmph.

Occasionally I'll load up some random Rolling Stones tracks, just hoping to find some excitement over them and/or their music.

Still hasn't happened. Sure, there's a handful of neat tunes they do, but overall I just find them to be so wantonly sloppy. Very loose. Jagger never did it for me.

BTW, my brother loved them because they were sloppy and loose.

 

I like both the Stones and the Beatles. The Stones' junkyard band sound, for me, is part of their appeal. Plus the Stones gave me one of my Top Ten favorite songs with Gimme Shelter , whereas no Beatles song makes it all the way to the top. But the Beatles were the more creative group and I especially love their druggy/psychedelic oeuvre. Two indispensable bands.

 

Both bands started out as rock 'n roll bands. The Beatles evolved into an art-rock band (for lack of a better term).

The Stones did not.

In my opinion.

I can claim quite a collection of albums by both The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, and I enjoy both, still, after all these years, though I prefer The Beatles.

I've long thought of The Beatles in terms of "song crafting" and the Stones in terms of "performance". Early Beatles and early Stones have a similar sonic texture. The Beatles got past this when they started recording albums of their own material; they seem to have spent creative energy to craft each song as a unique gem. The "song" becomes "the thing", and it is more than just the progression of notes, the tune, and the lyrics; it is also a matter of the orchestration. The Stones are rarely subtle in their orchestration; it remains generally unchanged from song to song, so that their sound is strongly identifiable. One thinks immediately upon hearing the Stones: "That's the Rolling Stones playing". One thinks upon hearing the Beatles: "That's a Beatle's song."

Many cover Beatles' songs, yet those covers always seem somewhat lame compared to the original, because each Beatles song is carefully designed, as a fine object of art is, and any change of any part makes for a marring of the original. One can cover a Stones song, and the object is to get the sound of the Stones, not so much the sound of the song, since there isn't one.

I suspect that if the Stones recorded an album of Beatles songs, it would sound like a Stones album, with the textures of every song having a homogeneity. I suspect that if the Beatles recorded an album of Stones songs, we would finally have opportunity to hear what each song has to offer individually, in its own universe of sound.

By my measure, I can likely conclude that the Stones is the stronger "band". But I prefer hearing songs to bands, and thus follow first the path of the Beatles. Again, I turn to the Beatles when I want to hear Beatles songs; I turn to the Stones when I want to hear the band play. It's been that way for me for years; I don't expect much to change.

On my Discogs database, the term "Beatles" gives me 74 hits, which includes several complete album box sets and many rarities.
"Rolling Stones" provides for 17 hits, but includes two large multi vinyl disc collections of their albums.

In my collection.

 

BTW, my brother loved them because they were sloppy and loose.

Did he ever date a cheerleader?

 

Satisfaction
19th Nervous Breakdown
Last Time
Jumpin' Jack Flash
Brown Sugar
Not Fade Away
Paint It Black
etc
etc

Some great rockin' tracks!

I own none of them, or any of their LPs, but had no trouble dancing to the odd one on the dancefloor or humming along to them on the radio. But the band's 'personality' simply didn't click with me in the way The Beatles' did.

 

I love them both.
I prefer The Beatles though, with a quite decisive margin. Awesome band, my favourite band actually.

When I think of The Beatles, I think of great albums.
When I think of The Rolling Stones, I think of great songs.

Despite my preference for The Fab4, I will never forget getting completely wild and loose on the dance floor on f.i. Paint It Black, Sympathy For The Devil, Honky Tonk Women, Gimme Shelter, Miss You, Too Much Blood and Mixed Emotions.

 

Two totally different bands therefore not an apt comparison. The Stones were about pure, unadulterated rock & roll. The Beatles were more whimsical and I daresay, precious. Nothing in their catalogue has the instinctually raw appeal of Exile on Main St.

Comparing the Stones and VU would make more sense.

 

. The Stones were about pure, unadulterated rock & roll

I rather thought of them as a blues band. If only they had a front man other than that old queen Jagger I might have bought more of their records

 

I used to like the Beatles. Now, I still like a few songs, but I can tolerate most of their catalog.

The Stones... never liked them. Now, I can barely tolerate them.

 

@Red. You can't compare them...yet you do. Please explain 'precious'.

 

Both bands started out as rock 'n roll bands. The Beatles evolved into an art-rock band (for lack of a better term).

The Stones did not.

In my opinion.

 

The Beatles were creative artists who transcended their influences and thus shifted the popular music paradigm.

The Stones were skilled artisans who worked within an established tradition modified by contemporary technology and commercial imperatives.

I'm more likely to reach for the Stones (late 60s/early 70s) than the Beatles, though I acknowledge the transformative achievement of the latter.

 

I suppose I am just weary of the seemingly eternal marketing effort to shove The Beatles down the throat of every man, woman, and child on earth. It's downright satanic.

 

In the last decades I've noticed that it's easiest to make profits from the hyped-view of the Beatles as those times become more and more poorly remembered (and hyped and mistaken and exaggerated). The Beatles phenomenon is endearing to so many types of people (and so many age groups) for all the various reasons. Paul was concerned about lasting 5 years, ha.

 

As I observed my slightly older friends in the early 60s, race music was being co-opted by the white guys. And seeing them react was my introduction to popular music. It's big subject, but a fascinating one.

Jagger and Richards wanted to use what was effective from Black music, but they had to be careful (and smile and look fashionable (early on)) and introduce lyrics which were more relevant to the whitebread existence. The Beatles could appeal to the excitable girls and the music students, while the Stones could succeed as a world-savvy boy band for the cool-er kids and the older girls who wanted the 'bad' boys. White kids had much more money to spend!

 

Jagger and Richards wanted to use what was effective from Black music, but they had to be careful (and smile and look fashionable (early on) and introduce lyrics which were more relevant to the whitebread existence.

One would be hard-pressed to find them smiling on those early LP jackets, and Jagger wore a sweatshirt(!) on their first appearance on Ed Sullivan, a sartorial faux pas (actually, a sartorial "f***k you!") according to the norms of acceptable public attire then.

The Stones weren't white-washing black music in the manner of Pat Boone and other blue-eyed appropriators; on the contrary, they were attempting to sound as "black" as their skinny white asses could manage, a stylistic choice that did not necessarily guarantee success in the white America of those years (as the likes of Pat Boone knew only too well). Luckily for the Stones, the times were a-changin,' however slowly and haltingly.

 

I asked my wife this question yesterday she said, "If I want to dance then I prefer the Stones. If I want to listen to great songs and records I prefer The Beatles."

That sums it up for me as well.

 

Our car MP3 stick has 48 Beatles songs and 22 Stones songs. My list of about 550 favourite albums has 5 Beatles albums and 0 Stones albums.

 

Not even Exile on Main St.? You're nuts!