Topic: A most important question

[Anders]

I never really got bitten by the Beatles bug. I'm a Stones man through and through.

[andrewclunn]

Not a huge fan of either, but if I have to choose I'll take the Beatles.

[MikeHz]

Without the Beatles, there probably wouldn't be a Stones, or any British Invasion.

[Neutral Milk]

WARNING, OPINION NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN AS FACT: The stones stuff all sounds the same. The Beatles had different eras with different sounds so I can cater what album I listen to based on my mood.

Plus there are very few songs in their extensive catalog I don't like. I haven't ever liked any of the members' solo stuff, though (other than a couple Lennon songs).

[lukebourassa]

While I recognize the masterful arranging and lyrical talents of the Beatles, I find a fair amount of their songs to be stuff I rarely want to hear. I never say "I just HAVE to listen to 'Eight Days A Week' right now!" Ever. While I could basically listen to any Rolling Stones song and be content (possibly because, as some would point out, their music has less range). So from a practical listening standpoint, I'm going with the Stones.

[David E.]

I voted Stones on personal taste alone.

[Audiophile]

Hard to choose what I like best.

I would probably have to choose Beatles because, frankly, after the Decca years I think most of their stuff is just ... meh.

But it is a bit like comparing apples and whiskey... 

[moj]

       the stone, the Beatles really annoy me and if I have to listen to them for any length of time get irritable, possibly hostile. The stones are OK but am not really a huge fan. The beatles I actively dislike, the stones I'll tolerate.
      Blah blah blah about what they did for music, I know the history have listened far to much of them.  I just don't like them and acknowledge the my opinion on this matter can not be swayed, as I image it goes for the fans.

[drizz]

The Beatles are it. From Rubber Soul onward is a complete masterclass in the art of the album. Before Rubber Soul it was a masterclass in the art of the pop song. The Stones were a good band with good songs, but the stars were really aligned, or whatever, when the Beatles happened. The Beatles were around for a decade and invented music, and the Stones have been playing catch up for 40 years since.

[Anders]

I'm fairly certain there was music around before the Beatles.

[Rai]

Dylan


I never cared for the Stones, they could never interest me. The Beatles, on the other were fun all the way through, even if I have an urge to kick Paul's face in every time I see him.

[Anders]

But Paul is dead!

[MikeHz]

I'm fairly certain there was music around before the Beatles.

Of course there was. But, it was very different. That group elevated pop music from the three-minute fluff love song to something with a bit of depth. They broke, and then rewrote, the rules.

[DeanMorrison]

Beatles, easily.

[lorryfach]

I don't like the Stones at all. Never have. Some of their songs don't annoy me, but that's about as far as that goes. It's just not my style.


I like some Beatles stuff. It's not my favorite, but it's enjoyable. So I voted for them.