Elite 8 (1960's) - #1 The Beatles vs #2 The Rolling Stones

YellowSnow · May 2018

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

The is the one the great all tim rock and roll debate. I was a Beatle freak as a kid and all through most of HS. Then my senior I bought "Let it Bleed" on CD because I though the album cover looked really cool. Everything changed for my after listening to that record and things have never been the same since.

Dennis_DeYoung · May 2018

#1 The Beatles

The Beatles led the Stones around by the nose.

The Stones have some great shit, but they were always riding on the wave and the Beatles always created the wave.

I always think of it as the Beatles changed the culture and the Stones reflected the culture.

Hence this as a no-brainer for me.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Dennis_DeYoung said:
The Beatles led the Stones around by the nose.

The Stones have some great shit, but they were always riding on the wave and the Beatles always created the wave.

I always think of it as the Beatles changed the culture and the Stones reflected the culture.

Hence this as a no-brainer for me.

Beatles are the most influential rock of all time, but the Stones are a very close second IMHO . The Stones were the original harder sounding rock group with a bad boy image. Jagger is the OG front man and everyone that came after was influenced by his shtick (borrowed heavily of course from James Brown and other bad ass blicks). What tips scales for me with the Stones is the duration of the time period where they were commercially and artistically relevant far exceeds that of anyone else in the business. They basically were a top 2 band in the world from 1964 to 1981 so almost two decades. No other artist in the Elite 8 here can touch that. Plus Beggars, Let it Bleed, Sticky and Exile is the greatest 4 album winning streak in rock history.

UW_Doog_Bot · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

I'd still rather listen to a Stones album if you put a gun to my head so they got the vote.

Tequilla · May 2018

#1 The Beatles

Beatles are more influential and that goes a long way to me

There’s some Stones stuff I really like (led by Paint it Black) and other stuff that I am indifferent to.

For me an easy call

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Tequilla said:
Beatles are more influential and that goes a long way to me

There’s some Stones stuff I really like (led by Paint it Black) and other stuff that I am indifferent to.

For me an easy call

I can never fault anyone for choosing Beatles over Stones; they are my two most favorite recording artists. In terms of personal taste, I grew to appreciate the more blues, roots, soul and country flavor of the Stones over the more pop oriented Beatles.

Kaepsknee · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Beatles were great. But the Stones were better.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

salemcoog said:
Beatles were great. But the Stones were better.

Probably the smartest thing anyone has said in the several years I've been here.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

We need more time Stones fans but not to fear time is on our side.

PurpleThrobber · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

YellowSnow said:
We need more time Stones fans but not to fear time is on our side.

You got your alt handles laying in wait?

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

PurpleThrobber said:

YellowSnow said:
We need more time Stones fans but not to fear time is on our side.
You got your alt handles laying in wait?

@JerryHallDawg ??

NEsnake12 · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

YellowSnow said:
We need more time Stones fans but not to fear time is on our side.

I tied it.

My Grandpa was in college during the mid to late 60s, Stones are his all time favorite. He's had me listening to them with him since I was in diapers. Love never faded for me.

Pitchfork51 · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Gregorian chanting > top 8

Swaye · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

@Cohen12 is warming up in the bullpen.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Swaye said:
@Cohen12 is warming up in the bullpen.

Where the frick is @89ute in the most important pole of his life?

Pitchfork51 · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

YellowSnow said:

Swaye said:
@Cohen12 is warming up in the bullpen.
Where the frick is @89ute in the most important pole of his life?

The temple?

BleachedAnusDawg · May 2018

#1 The Beatles

Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!

Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.

Dennis_DeYoung · May 2018

#1 The Beatles

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.

Wrong.

backthepack · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.

And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.

UW_Doog_Bot · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!

The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.

The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.

I know which one I prefer.

Dennis_DeYoung · May 2018

#1 The Beatles

YellowSnow said:

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.

Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?

GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

UW_Doog_Bot said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.

The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.

I know which one I prefer.

Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.

Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?

GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

Dennis_DeYoung said:

YellowSnow said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.

Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?

GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.

I would concede I'm not on you're level if you're gonna play RECORDING STUDIO SUPERIORITY GUY.

As much as I love Aftermath, it can't hold a candle to Revolver in terms of influence/brilliance. But then oh wait, Paint It Black was a better single than anything the Beatles put out in 1966. And it's the best use of sitar on a rock record, even if George got there first. The Stones took many of the Beatles ideas and made them even better.

UW_Doog_Bot · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

YellowSnow said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.

The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.

I know which one I prefer.
Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.

Completely agree. The Stones were way more influenced by jazz & blues though. They even took their name from Muddy Waters.

In my early years I grew up loving the Beatles and being pretty oblivious to the Stones. When I finally found the Stones as a teenager though, I listened to their entire discography from 64' to 72' in one sitting.

My father, who is a bit of an audiophile, has all of these albums, Beatles & Rolling Stones, on vinyl from their first US releases. He prefers the Stones by a wide margin.

YellowSnow · May 2018

#2 The Rolling Stones

UW_Doog_Bot said:

YellowSnow said:

UW_Doog_Bot said:

BleachedAnusDawg said:
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.

The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.

I know which one I prefer.
Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.
Completely agree. The Stones were way more influenced by jazz & blues though. They even took their name from Muddy Waters.

In my early years I grew up loving the Beatles and being pretty oblivious to the Stones. When I finally found the Stones as a teenager though, I listened to their entire discography from 64' to 72' in one sitting.

My father, who is a bit of an audiophile, has all of these albums, Beatles & Rolling Stones, on vinyl from their first US releases. He prefers the Stones by a wide margin.

The one thing that sucks about early Stones records is they sound like shit up until Aftermath in 1966. The only exception is the tracks they cut at Chess in 1964. The early Beatles records were much better recorded sound-wise.