Discussion in 'The Howard Stern Show' started by bennymuso, Sep 16, 2016.
Who do you prefer?
The answer is the Beatles but there will be a few "edgy" people posting how they sucked.
Both pretty boring imo..guess the Beatles
Benny, If I didn't have to hit the road for work we could get into this very thought provoking poll.
Two different bands. The Beatles were popular at a unique point in time and produced unique music. The Stones were "darker" and didn't innovate as much, but were harder and more obviously blues influenced. The early Beatles stuff is poppy and often insipid, the early Stones stuff STILL holds up well. The Beatles' "Tomorrow Never Knows" is an outstanding song and point of departure. The Stones' "Gimme Shelter" was equally profound, if terrestrial.
Get your priorities straight son.
Stones have probably 20-30% filler.
Beatles probably 5-10%.
Stones. They speak to me, IMO the greatest band of all time.
While I appreciate the Beatles I never cared much for them.
It's a Sophie's Choice to pick one over the other for me.
Keith Richards is Rock & Roll.
Both have an incredible body of work, I'm a fan of both. I'm a bigger fan of the stones because they're much more of a down and dirty fuck you if you don't get it rock n roll band.
Beatles. Stones lyrics are garbage
beatles songs are crafted
stones songs either hit a high bar or suck donkey dicks
sympathy for the devil is the best rock and roll song of all time. CERTIFIED
I'll never get that. I understand not enjoying the Beatles music. But to just say they flat out suck is beyond ignorant. At least appreciate the innovation and song writing. It ain't easy to write countless songs that practically the entire world loves.
The Beatles were incredible. Probably the best band musically. That being said, I prefer the Stones. The raunchy grooves hit me harder.
I like both bands. The Stones have been my favorite band since the early 70's. I was exposed to The Beatles when I was a real little kid by my babysitters, but The Stones always resonated more with me. The Stones have a more impressive body of work, IMO. I would put Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Let It Bleed, Exile On Main Street, It's Only R & R, Goats Head Soup, and Some Girls all in the damn good to great category. I'll give The Beatles Revolver, Rubber Soul, Magical Mystery Tour, Abbey Road, White Album, and Sgt Pepper. On paper, 6 or 7 great albums each seems even enough, but The Stones have still put out a lot of great music since the 80's. Dirty Work, Voodoo Lounge, Bridges to Babylon, and even Bigger Bang, although far from great by Stones standards are still better than 90% of anything else that comes out at the same time.
One more thing... We often hear about how groundbreaking and innovative The Beatles were. Let's just make one thing very clear. George Martin was the innovator. He was the one suggesting the string sections for Eleanor Rigby and coming up with the ideas for things like the harpsichord on Fixing a Hole. Dude was a complete mad scientist. Historians try to say that Paul and John would have these ideas and visions and George would make them happen. I call bullshit. Or maybe someone has an explanation as to why neither of them ever came even remotely close to those Martin records again in their solo careers.
Is there a cutoff date for not counting Stones material, since I think they've been releasing stuff the past 20-30 years, but I couldn't tell you any of it.
This is the most retarded music conversation on the planet. It's meaningless. Both bands are epic and have contributed so much great material to our musical landscape. So many eyerolls to you AGAIN bro. Get real.