Jump to content

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Lorraine

By Lorraine,
in Music Of The Spheres

 Share

  

32 members have voted

  1. 1. Which band is(was) more talented?

    • The Beatles
      25
    • The Rolling Stones
      6
    • They both stink. Neither one.
      1

Recommended Posts

RUSHHEAD666

RUSHHEAD666

Posted
Posted

Beatles for studio, Stones for live.

 

I think this says it all actually.

 

Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio.

 

I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!!

 

I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL!

 

“Suck”? Man, come on. You can’t judge The Beatles live solely on audio and video recordings.

 

Side, relevant note: Not sure if there are any current TRFers who’ve seen The Beatles in concert.

 

Well then blame it on the audio technology for that time man.

 

My parents saw The Beatles at Candlestick Park. IT WAS SHIT!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 101
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

ReRushed
ReRushed

The Beatles have more colors in their paintbox.   Both the Beatles and the Stones have the magic to make you think they are the greatest band ever when you are listening to them. I'm glad I have the

ReRushed
ReRushed

One thing I really appreciate about the Beatles/Stones debate is when the Beatles were dissolving and breaking up the Stones were coalescing into the best version of the band. Wonderful timing.

custom55
custom55

http://youtu.be/Gkv5btT4ZBs

JohnnyBlaze

JohnnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

Beatles for studio, Stones for live.

 

I think this says it all actually.

 

Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio.

 

I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!!

 

I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL!

 

“Suck”? Man, come on. You can’t judge The Beatles live solely on audio and video recordings.

 

Side, relevant note: Not sure if there are any current TRFers who’ve seen The Beatles in concert.

 

Well then blame it on the audio technology for that time man.

 

My parents saw The Beatles at Candlestick Park. IT WAS SHIT!

 

No I’m blaming you for saying they suck when you haven’t seen them live!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RUSHHEAD666

RUSHHEAD666

Posted
Posted

Beatles for studio, Stones for live.

 

I think this says it all actually.

 

Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio.

 

I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!!

 

I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL!

 

“Suck”? Man, come on. You can’t judge The Beatles live solely on audio and video recordings.

 

Side, relevant note: Not sure if there are any current TRFers who’ve seen The Beatles in concert.

 

Well then blame it on the audio technology for that time man.

 

My parents saw The Beatles at Candlestick Park. IT WAS SHIT!

 

No I’m blaming you for saying they suck when you haven’t seen them live!

 

Hahaha! Ok! Fair. My dad Earl I Ramer Jr and my mom Carol Ann saw them live.

 

They lived in Daly City then. Very close to South San Francisco.

 

They said The Beatles were HORRIBLE LIVE!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RUSHHEAD666

RUSHHEAD666

Posted
Posted

I know it doesn't count but I've seen hours and hours of live Beatles footage. They are terrible.

 

Even that stunt they played on the rooftop is crap.

 

The Beatles are great but they are so overrated.

 

The Best Oxymoronic Band In the World.

 

There are so many band that sound so amazing in the studio. Live? PURE SHITE!

 

Ringo live? He looks like the dead guy in WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S when he plays the drums!! LOL!!!

 

Watts may look bored too but he likes to hit a China Boy Cymbal. HA!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zepphead

zepphead

Posted
Posted

The Beatles have more colors in their paintbox.

 

Both the Beatles and the Stones have the magic to make you think they are the greatest band ever when you are listening to them. I'm glad I have the choice.

Nicely said!
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Syrinx

Syrinx

Posted
Posted
I have always been a Stones fan way more than a Beatles fan. I appreciate the Beatles song book and what they did for music, but the Stones music just speaks to me so much more. And they are absolutely one of the best live acts of all time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
zepphead

zepphead

Posted
Posted

I think the debate of who was the better live act is a bit stacked in favour of the Stones.

The Beatles stopped playing live in 1966 whereas the Stones continue playing. The difference in terms of equipment and live production has improved massively since 1966.

 

It is hard for me to expand or contribute to this argument as I never saw the Beatles live and only saw the Stones once in 1982.

 

However my mate (who is a few years older than me) saw the Beatles in 1964 in The Kings Hall Belfast. I asked him about this. He said that basically the Beatle's amplification was woefully inadequate for the venue, and, it wouldn't have really mattered anyway, as the entire show from start to finish was drowned out by the sound of screaming girls!

 

When I saw the Stones in 1982 it was a full blown stage show with a band in their prime. A fantastic gig!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorraine

Lorraine

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Beatles for studio, Stones for live.

 

I think this says it all actually.

 

Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio.

 

I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!!

 

I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL!

What band didn't stink live back then? Except for Peter Frampton, I don't think I ever went to a concert back in the day that didn't horribly disappoint me because the songs didn't come close to their album version.

 

Today, with technology, it is a different story.

 

I'm voting for the Stones. :codger:

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorraine

Lorraine

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I think the debate of who was the better live act is a bit stacked in favour of the Stones.

The Beatles stopped playing live in 1966 whereas the Stones continue playing. The difference in terms of equipment and live production has improved massively since 1966.

 

It is hard for me to expand or contribute to this argument as I never saw the Beatles live and only saw the Stones once in 1982.

 

However my mate (who is a few years older than me) saw the Beatles in 1964 in The Kings Hall Belfast. I asked him about this. He said that basically the Beatle's amplification was woefully inadequate for the venue, and, it wouldn't have really mattered anyway, as the entire show from start to finish was drowned out by the sound of screaming girls!

 

When I saw the Stones in 1982 it was a full blown stage show with a band in their prime. A fantastic gig!

I could've gone to see them during their Let It Bleed tour (can you believe how phenomenal that would have been?????) but didn't. Just one of the too many to count anymore regrets of my life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
treeduck

treeduck

Posted
Posted

I know it doesn't count but I've seen hours and hours of live Beatles footage. They are terrible.

 

Even that stunt they played on the rooftop is crap.

 

The Beatles are great but they are so overrated.

 

The Best Oxymoronic Band In the World.

 

There are so many band that sound so amazing in the studio. Live? PURE SHITE!

 

Ringo live? He looks like the dead guy in WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S when he plays the drums!! LOL!!!

 

Watts may look bored too but he likes to hit a China Boy Cymbal. HA!

Earl if you had just 10 dollars left and you decided to hell with it I'll buy one more album, and it was between the Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks, which band would get your 10 bucks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bluefox4000

bluefox4000

Posted
Posted

The beatles. a big factor is i grew up with their music in my life. i enjoy some stones. but only like 5 or six albums out of their hugh discography.

 

also personally i think the beatles wrote better tunes on the whole.

 

Mick

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
apetersvt

apetersvt

Posted
Posted

Beatles for studio, Stones for live.

 

I think this says it all actually.

 

Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio.

 

I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!!

 

I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL!

What band didn't stink live back then? Except for Peter Frampton, I don't think I ever went to a concert back in the day that didn't horribly disappoint me because the songs didn't come close to their album version.

 

Today, with technology, it is a different story.

 

I'm voting for the Stones. :codger:

 

Will agree with you that there weren't a lot of great live performances in the mid 60s.

But the last Beatles concert was in 1969. There were amazing live shows then: Hendrix, Cream, Zeppelin, The Doors, Allman Brothers, Grateful Dead, The Who, Santana, CSN&Y, Janis Joplin,

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorraine

Lorraine

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Beatles for studio, Stones for live.

 

I think this says it all actually.

 

Beatles suck live. They are like Dokken or Kingdom Come or even Great White Live. Terrible. But great in the studio.

 

I've seen the Stones live three times. THEY WERE AMAZING!!!!

 

I think this is a tough call so I'm going with THE WHO! LOL!

What band didn't stink live back then? Except for Peter Frampton, I don't think I ever went to a concert back in the day that didn't horribly disappoint me because the songs didn't come close to their album version.

 

Today, with technology, it is a different story.

 

I'm voting for the Stones. :codger:

 

Will agree with you that there weren't a lot of great live performances in the mid 60s.

But the last Beatles concert was in 1969. There were amazing live shows then: Hendrix, Cream, Zeppelin, The Doors, Allman Brothers, Grateful Dead, The Who, Santana, CSN&Y, Janis Joplin,

Out of the bands you mention, I only saw CSN&Y and The Who. Honestly, I came away from every concert disappointed. Except Peter Frampton.

 

Guess it's just a matter of taste.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorraine

Lorraine

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I know it doesn't count but I've seen hours and hours of live Beatles footage. They are terrible.

 

Even that stunt they played on the rooftop is crap.

 

The Beatles are great but they are so overrated.

 

The Best Oxymoronic Band In the World.

 

There are so many band that sound so amazing in the studio. Live? PURE SHITE!

 

Ringo live? He looks like the dead guy in WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S when he plays the drums!! LOL!!!

 

Watts may look bored too but he likes to hit a China Boy Cymbal. HA!

Earl if you had just 10 dollars left and you decided to hell with it I'll buy one more album, and it was between the Beatles, Stones, Who and Kinks, which band would get your 10 bucks?

That's a good question.

 

Earl? :hail:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
treeduck

treeduck

Posted
Posted

My education on the Stones and Beatles isn't stellar but I will debate with any of you.

 

Where is ReRushed? At least he loves FISHBONE.

 

There is hope for this dying forum.

Earl if I had to choose a Stones album to match your personality it would be A Bigger Bang! Or Some Girls, because you're always chasing some girl or other...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lorraine

Lorraine

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My education on the Stones and Beatles isn't stellar but I will debate with any of you.

 

Where is ReRushed? At least he loves FISHBONE.

 

There is hope for this dying forum.

Earl if I had to choose a Stones album to match your personality it would be A Bigger Bang! Or Some Girls, because you're always chasing some girl or other...

Quite right, TD. He is the ladies' man! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tangy

tangy

Posted
Posted

My education on the Stones and Beatles isn't stellar but I will debate with any of you.

 

Where is ReRushed? At least he loves FISHBONE.

 

There is hope for this dying forum.

Earl if I had to choose a Stones album to match your personality it would be A Bigger Bang! Or Some Girls, because you're always chasing some girl or other...

 

I would say rush head soup...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HemiBeers

HemiBeers

Posted
Posted

beatles by a slight edge. McCartney and Lennon are more talented than anyone from the Stones. Yes, the Stones had a longer career. But post mid 80s they've just put out retread shit. You could also make the strong argument that the Beatles solo careers were stronger after break up than any solo efforts from the Stones.

 

As for the Beatles concerts, all mid 60s concert sound production was shit so I don't give that much weight. It wasn't until the 70s that arena rock sound production got more refined.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...