The Rolling Stones: Just As Influential As The Beatles?

Question

I think so. The Stones influence on the Rock Music of these past 30 Years has to rival the Beatles.
Personally I like the fact that they took the same style of music to a harder, tougher edge than The Beatles did.
But it is Your Opinion I want.

Answer 1

I don't think they had the influence the Beatles had, but definetly they had one. In one way I find it sad, because in my opinion they are a much better band, not only because they outlasted them, but because they played much more inspired and experimental music from day one (almost). It took the Beatles at least six years to try to explore new paths than that happy sing song that caused the Beatlemania.
Not that I do not respect what the Beatles did for modern music!

Answer 2

I agree with Fonzie T. I grew up in the 60's, and the Beatles influenced everything from music, fashion, art, and even the way some kids spoke at the time! I've never really seen any major similarities between the Beatles and Stones when it came to their music. The Stones always looked up to the Beatles back in the 60's, and tried their darnedest to be creative, and write their own material. In that aspect, Jagger and Richards only wished they had half of John and Paul's talent, as they couldn't go on playing blues covers forever. In fact the Stones first hit was written by the Beatles, 'I Wanna be Your Man'.
So many bands in the 60's tried to look like and sound like them; Paul Revere and the Raiders, Count Five, The Byrds, Blues Magoos, Hermans Hermits, Manfred Mann, The Kinks, the list is endless. Even the Rolling Stones copied their look in the beginning. EVERY body did to some extent.
When it comes to the music side of the influence thing, the Stones can hardly be called original, as they primarily ripped off American bluesman anyway. Even Keith Richards admitted that every lick he plays, he stole from Chuck Berry!
At the start of their career, The Beatles did borrow a lot of things from the likes Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Little Richard too. But they were more subtle about it, and payed more attention to writing original songs, geared towards the new style rock or 'Beat Movement' which they themselves had started. What the Stones might have influenced was the 60's British blues movement, The Yardbirds, John Mayalls Blues Breakers, Fleetwood Mac, The Pretty Things, Savoy Brown, Chicken Shack, etc. I think they really put that movement into gear, and have always been very blues based in their approach to music. With the exception of some of their more experimental late 60's psych material. Then they realized they weren't quite as imaginative as the Beatles in that area, and went back to blues/rock again.
The Beatles on the other hand went after a much larger demographic, the young influential fans of 'Rock and Pop'.
We can also talk about studio and recoding techniques / trickery, ie; Sgt Pepper. The Beatles and George Martin really set the marker high on that one! Even though many of these studio techniques were used previously by people like Les Paul, Phil Spector, and The Mothers of Invention, The Beatles really had the imagination, and writing skills to convey this new medium properly.
Take a look at the Stones 'Their Satanic Majesties Request',
those guys were always trying to play 'catch up' to the 'Fab Four'.
The Beatles were only together as a band for around 7 or 8 years, while the Stones are still going strong after 45 years.
The fact that people are still debating this age old 'Beatles vs Stones' thing says something about just how influential the Beatles really were.
If the Stones had broken up in 1969/70, I seriously doubt they would have made the same impact the way the Beatles have all these years later. The Beatles back catalog has been a source for inspiration / material by everyone from Jazz musicians to Classical orchestration. Heck even 'Circ Du Soleil' has based an entire show on the Beatles music 37 years after they broke up.
So in my opinion, the Rolling Stones aren't even in the same ball park, so to speak.

Answer 3

I liked both The Beatles and The Stones which was unusual. Most people liked one and hated the other. I think the Beatles have been more influential on the style of British POP music rather than Rock Music. I have never heard any of The Stones music played in classical style whereas The Beatles music has been played by orchestras throughout the world. I think both were influential in their own sphere and have shaped the rock/pop world.

Answer 4

Well, undoubtedly The Beatles are one of the most influential groups of the 20th century.

But the Rolling Stones have got staying power ~ still touring over 40 years later!

For me, though, I like a cross spectrum of The Beatles work, but I really only like the Stones 1960's songs.

It is interesting to note that The Beatles were actually fans of The Rolling Stones!

Answer 5

No way. The Rolling Stones will NEVER compare to the Beatles. The Beatles are on a level all their own.

Answer 6

the Stones for me, but both the Stones & the Beatles were influenced by the late great Buddy Holly.

Answer 7

Just the fact that you have to ask shows they aren't as influential. But not many others have been that influential, so it's no knock on the Stones, who are still very awesome.

Answer 8

I believe the Stones are even MORE influential than the Beatles...not just for the harder style but for their ability to last as long as they have AND still be able to crank it out on stage at their ages...it is sad that the Beatles split and that 2 are now gone, but the Stones will be missed more when they are gone--jmho

Answer 9

The Stones have outlasted the Beatles, and in my opinion are a much more talented group of musicians.

The Beatles never really got my attention until the Abbey Road era.

The first time I heard Satisfaction, I was a Stones fan. I knew it was something new and different and special.

Beatles having more songs covered is not necessarily a good thing. It only says it's easier to cover a Beatles song. They're simple. Rolling Stones songs are much more complicated. With Mick Jaggers unique style..... no one else has ever done anything like it.... until Steven Tyler of Aerosmith maybe.

Answer 10

No, not even close. They have had no influence "these past 30 years". They did have some influence 40 years ago, but they aint no Beatles.