Anyone out there agree with me that the ROLLING STONES were and still are far better than THE BEATLES??? They have more upbeat and lively music!!
2007-01-04 23:46:50 · 25 answers · asked by Kuschke 2 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
i couldn't agree more.
♪♪♫
♥shadow-dweller
2007-01-04 23:48:55 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
If you look back at rock history The Beatles started it all for British bands in America. If it weren't for The Beatles the Stones would have never made it big. The Beatles also have a wider range of music from Tin Pan Alley to psychedelic and everything in between.
2007-01-06 08:48:29 · answer #2 · answered by brit 3 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Oh - toughie - trust me I love them both - but The Beatles for me.
At the time The Beatles pushed the boundaries a little more in my opinion, they experimented quite widely and they knew when to call it a day (just about).
The Beatles also started out trying to appeal to the public at large and moved south of centre, The Stones have gone the
2007-01-05 00:46:36 · answer #3 · answered by chillipope 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Beatles
2007-01-04 23:48:48 · answer #4 · answered by MANC & PROUD 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋
certain things they did but they started off basically doing covers then writing songs because their manager wanted them to be more like the beatles and lets face it i love the stones but the beatles were so much more pioneering and original. ps what have upbeat and lively got to do with how good a band is?
2007-01-04 23:50:27 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
Ive been in a living room with people who no there music like scientist no there science.and when listened to deeply the rolling stones got into are bones they won in my eyes as a deep thinker quite easily. on a straight human feeling level the beatles where a mania a drug . and a drug is pushed and taken. if you take john lennon out of the beatles ,
2007-01-05 07:42:25 · answer #6 · answered by clare p 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
absolutely not!
look at the rolling stones albums- very patchy indeed - almost all of them, in fact.
the stones recorded some classic tracks and they have had a career which has been 3 times longer than the Beatles, but having said that if you look at the overall quality of the Beatles and the longevity of their tracks, both album tracks and singles, you will see that the Beatles are "better"....
2007-01-04 23:55:00 · answer #7 · answered by dirk_hampstead 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Sorry i have to disagree there, i much preferbthe beatles over the stones.
2007-01-05 03:50:11 · answer #8 · answered by Rebecca 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
the beatles did way more for rock 'n roll than any other band. their songs are classics. my father taught me the lyrics to every song, had me memorize the publisher, record company and who sang it. without the beatles, the world would collapse but we could do without the rolling stones. my dad and i went to go see a concert of theirs two years ago and it was horrid.
2007-01-04 23:59:09 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
the stones are great but l vote the beatles
2007-01-05 04:44:38 · answer #10 · answered by tezweeman 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
i dont like the stones but the beatles i know more of their songs so i would have to say the beatles.
2007-01-04 23:50:49 · answer #11 · answered by helen34 4 · 8⤊ 0⤋