Beatles or Rolling Stones?

[Willy Wanker]

my knock against the stones is jaggers voice. both bands drummers are basic AF.

i actually enjoy listening to j, p & g sing.

True, but Ringo was the people's drummer, real popular with the fans. I guess the fans gravitated towards him because he was like the everyday man playing with three exceptional talents.

I've literally heard little girls who can drum and play more complicated beats. I like Ringo, but he was lucky to be in the right band.

I like Jaggers voice, but Beatles were on another level when it came to songwriting and experimention. There's a reason why both hardcore music fans and casual pop music fans usually choose the Beatles over the Stones.

[Elroy The Great]

True, but Ringo was the people's drummer, real popular with the fans. I guess the fans gravitated towards him because he was like the everyday man playing with three exceptional talents.

I've literally heard little girls who can drum and play more complicated beats. I like Ringo, but he was lucky to be in the right band.

I like Jaggers voice, but Beatles were on another level when it came to songwriting and experimention. There's a reason why both hardcore music fans and casual pop music fans usually choose the Beatles over the Stones.

watts, ringo and chris slade have to be the most basic drummers around.

snare, kick, high hat, repeat.

ringo had personality and a dope name (beats dick starkey), ill give him that.

jaggers voice, such that it is, fits the band. i wont be quick to give eddie vedder any vocal awards but it fit his band/genre. some people feel a quality singing voice cant possibly be sincere. only voices like tom waits, lou reed and bob dylan are authentic and meaningful. ''pure honest emotion''

imho, the beatles did it all. the crappy bubble gum crap, the rock outs, the ballads, the trippy shlt.....nothing against stones fans but it really isnt close....imHO.

[dan_cov]

The Zombies >The Beatles >The Rolling Stones.

[jaded]

The Stones sound is very original. They don't sound like anyone else and nobody since sounds like them.

[Rudyo]

Beatles 118-110, clear cut UD.

[New England]

the beatles weren't much more than a pop band. the stones are a much more dynamic, deeper band. deeper library of albums, just a better band.

it is not even close! stones >

[New England]

The Stones sound is very original. They don't sound like anyone else and nobody since sounds like them.

thtye've got 50 original sounds, too. everything from folk music, pop, punk, blues, rock and roll, everything. FFS this is not close! you'd need to pay me to sit down and listen to every Beatles album. most of it was pop garbage written to get 16 year old girls screaming.

[New England]

The Zombies >The Beatles >The Rolling Stones.

lol.......... and i like hte zombies.

[New England]

watts, ringo and chris slade have to be the most basic drummers around.

snare, kick, high hat, repeat.

ringo had personality and a dope name (beats dick starkey), ill give him that.

jaggers voice, such that it is, fits the band. i wont be quick to give eddie vedder any vocal awards but it fit his band/genre. some people feel a quality singing voice cant possibly be sincere. only voices like tom waits, lou reed and bob dylan are authentic and meaningful. ''pure honest emotion''

imho, the beatles did it all. the crappy bubble gum crap, the rock outs, the ballads, the trippy shlt.....nothing against stones fans but it really isnt close....imHO.

dude no! this is not an opinion, the stones did a hell of a lot more!

[Elroy The Great]

dude no! this is not an opinion, the stones did a hell of a lot more!

admittedly, my stones knowledge is lacking.

teto.

we both walk away happy with our choices