40 years later can we finally say who is best: Stones or Beatles?

[louballoo]

40 years later can we finally say who is best: Stones or Beatles?

In 72' you were either a Stones or Beatles type. Sad to say I used to be a beatles guy. Now 40 years later I find my Beatles albums gathering dust, but the stones vinyl always gets me rockin.........

What is it?

Your Pal

Louballoo

 

[blossomchris]

Why is there not a choice of neither?

 

[Joe]

Why is there not a choice of neither?

Or both?

 

[Ibbots]

In '72 I was more of an Andy Pandy type

 

[zener]

I like music , i do not care from where it comes.

 

[Gaius]

Probably the Beatles but the Stones play better Rock 'n' Roll.

 

[gassor]

Apples and oranges as it always was. Did you think you would get a definitive answer here?

 

[gassor]

Why is there not a choice of neither?

What, for the two greatest bands ever?

 

[PaulMB]

This is not a 1972 question, but a 1967 question for school kids. What's the point? 160-odd years later, can we say if Brahms or Wagner were best?

 

[Markus S]

Yet another audiophile living firmly in the musical past?

 

[john & Jake]

Hi,
Depends what is meant by best, Beatles could write a good song that will stand the test of time.
Stones more about raw live energy with songs you could forget.(Apart from one or two)

 

[Errol]

40 years later can we finally say who is best: Stones or Beatles?

In 72' you were either a Stones or Beatles type. Sad to say I used to be a beatles guy. Now 40 years later I find my Beatles albums gathering dust, but the stones vinyl always gets me rockin.........

What is it?

Your Pal

Louballoo

Is it a slow day on the plains Lou?

Mr ED

 

[Barrymagrec]

This is not a 1972 question, but a 1967 question for school kids. What's the point? 160-odd years later, can we say if Brahms or Wagner were best?

Even before 1967, about 1964, my music master at school (in retrospect the laziest teacher I ever knew) told us with absolute certainty that "in five years time no one will remember who the Beatles were"

 

[foxwelljsly]

In '72 i was more into a zygote vibe.

 

[jimi]

Even before 1967, about 1964, my music master at school (in retrospect the laziest teacher I ever knew) told us with absolute certainty that "in five years time no one will remember who the Beatles were"

Was he Bob Mc by any chance?

 

[Tony L]

In 72' you were either a Stones or Beatles type.

I hate to break it to you, but The Beatles had long since broken up by '72.

PS The Beatles were best, and very obviously so IMO. I've never really seen the point of The Stones.

 

[Joe P]

Of the many things the great British evolutionary biologist J B S Haldane is known for is his response to a theologian who asked him what could be inferred from the mind of the Creator from The Creation.

"An inordinate fondness for beetles," was Haldane's reply.

(Some 400,000 known species of beetles have been discovered, comprising more than half of all known insect species.)

So Beatles it is, though I have no idea why Lou asked this question in the music room. Perhaps a geologist could comment on the stones.

Joe

 

[gassor]

I've never really seen the point of The Stones.

Groovy beat music for dancing to. So many great singles.

 

[Cheese]

I've never really seen the point of The Stones.

A cheeky singer, a cool rhythm guitarist with a rock face, an incredibly groovy rhythm section (when they play well, which happens not too often I admit) and a useless guitarist whose job is maybe to organise the booze.

No but the classic Bleed/Sticky/Exile are filled with great songs, and seeing the Stones's raw power in the mid-60's must have been quite something.

 

[vuk]

beatles = barbershop quartet



vuk.