Music Banter - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-roll-classic-rock-60s-rock/)

- - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (https://www.musicbanter.com/rock-n-roll-classic-rock-60s-rock/4392-10-reasons-why-rolling-stones-were-better-than-beatles.html)

Well, regarding the #10, I say: Suit up!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger (Post 36756)

1. Keith Richards , coolest guitarist on the planet

2. Mick Jagger , greatest frontman of all time

3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful ,back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with ?

4. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are better than kiddie love songs & mystical bollocks.
Beatles - Wrote chart friendly pop songs & ballads. Stones wrote gritty hard rock songs

5. The Beatles had to have their faces on album covers , The Stones could stick a picture of a toilet on theirs & still have it sell millions.

6. Stones - The 70s , Exile On Main Street, Sticky Fingers, It`s Only Rock n Roll
Beatles - The 70s , Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting & Ringo Starr solo albums *shudder*

7. The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn`t hack it , Keith Richards played an entire gig at gunpoint.

8. Charlie Watts would never lower himself to doing Thomas The Tank Engine voiceovers.

9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus , Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss.
Both bad yes but if forced at gunpoint I know what i`m going to choose.

10 Apperence , looking like you just got dragged from the street > Matching suits. How many bands these days look like this...

No contest

This makes me rage, but lets just agree they are both great.

you just said exactly everything i was about to say. thank you

1. one of them died during the duration of the band
2. one of them looks like an exhumed corpse
3. Parachute Woman
4. I just Wanna See His Face
5. Moonlight Mile
6. Mick kinda looks like a chimpanzee
7. they played a lot of blues, man
8. they're still here
9. Keith and Mick was very pally with Gram Parsons (RIP)
10. more members than the Beatless

As to why I think the Stones are better. Don't hold me to answer all 10.

1. Brian Jones & Ian Stewart

2. They've been around forever.

3. Mick Jagger is the all-time Front Man.

4. Keith Richards influence, are guitarist like Chuck Berry.

5. Charlie Watts is a solid rock drummer, and makes it look so easy.

6. Keith Woods is a solid rythm & lead guitarist.

7. The Stones transcended their sound & style to Disco in the 70s.

8. Bill Wyman is underrated as a bass player.

9. The Stones are what Rock & Roll is all about.

10. Influence..

Oh Wow! That was easier than I thought it would be, reasons why the Stones are better? :thumb:

when was keith held at gun point??

They both bore me. Although the Beatles had some more experimental and interesting stuff. So, I'm going with the Beatles.

A lot of good reasons so far. Let me add... A) The Stones were in way cooler movies, Jean Luc Godards "Sympathey For the Devil" and Jagger's tour de force performance in Nicholas Roeg's "Performace", way better than the Beatles work with Richard Lester. B) Woody banged the Canadian's PM wife while the dude was campaigning for re-election. Who's the best woman any of the Beatles banged...Yoko? Alright, there's Barbara Bach but that's after they broke up.

10 Reasons why The Who were better than Rolling Stones

1. Pete Townshend > Keith Richards
2. Roger Daltrey > Mick Jagger
3. John Entwistle > Bill Wyman
4. Keith Moon > Charlie Watts
5. The grand concept albums, one of which was even too grand for The Who themselves, but that they still managed to turn into "Who's next" which eats any selected Stones album for breakfast.
6. "Rock'n Roll circus" that Stones didn't dare to release as The Who blew them away with the "A quick one" performance.
7. The Who's debut consisted almost entirely of self-penned songs, Stones' debut had one original.
8. "Live at Leeds". And for the remaining doubters "Live at Isle of Wight".
9. High-end artrock > sloppy blues rock. Ok, that's an exaggeration but The Who were still much more diverse during much less time.
10. Townshend's nose > just about everything

I could write books about why I think the Stones are better, but it probably isn't worth it seeing as someone could write an equably tangible argument about the Beatles.

There is something I don't understand, though. Critics rack off on the Stones because they became rather trendy after Goats Head Soup, but they seem to forget that the Beatles were rather trendy throughout their entire career. And at least the Stones could make an interesting album in the 70's even after shooting heroine into their eyeballs while the Beatles members' solo projects got progressively bland throughout the years. Like Wings. What the hell happened to that?