The Rolling Stones were a great blues band. Yeah yeah yeah. They are quite dissimilar to me, and so they really defy comparison. Mick and Keith are a sorry bunch of hypocrites that never got over The Beatles' succes. When I was a kid, I didn't really... get the Stones... then I re-discovered them, and now, evidently, I like them a whole lot more than The Beatles overall. Tracklist . By Gabrielle Bruney I love both bands. The Stones never did it for me. best. A Hard Day's Night is their first solid, cohesive work - and it's very good. Rubber Soul is, in my opinion, one of the most overrated Beatles records. The Beatles vs. This seems less so now. Pure quality. The White Album vs. Beggars Banquet: Another hard one. Beatles changed pop culture forever, but were only around for 8 years and have almost no decent live recordings to speak of, not their fault, but still. I'd personally choose The Rolling Stones. Let It Bleed's weakest moment is Country Honk, but I'd still much rather listen to that. The Rolling Stones were REPLICATORS. You see, for decades warring pub factions have mistakenly assumed that The Beatles vs The Stones was a question of attitude. Stones have Let it Bleed, Exile on Main St (almost a double album) Beggers Banquet, Sticky Fingers, and if we're being generous, Goats head soup. I’ll take the Stones eight days a week over the Beatles. The Rolling Stones had an edgier reputation than The Beatles Credit: Terry O'Neill - Getty THE Stones have released 30 studio albums, 28 … Mick Jagger Offered His Take on the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones Debate "One band is, unbelievably luckily, still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn’t exist." functions as sort of a 'best of' of 64-Stones in my opinion, so it gets the win easily. I do like "Heart of Stone," but Help! They also had a style that stuck with them all through their career, where the Beatles never developed a clear style and just did anything. The writer tells us Tom Wolfe said: "The Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Rolling Stones wanted to burn your town down." Plus, it's all originals. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. Discography speaks for itself. Although I used to own a vinyl picture album of the Stones that was just interviews and when Brian was asked the question “what do you think when people compare you to The Beatles ?” He replied “well when The Beatles first came out everyone was copying them. Husband and wife Stan and Betty Mallett, from Exeter, took the photographs whenever famous names visited Devon. Stones are 50+ years of Rock n Roll brilliance. It's just down to personal preference. Be the first to share what you think! View Entire Discussion (0 Comments) ... help Reddit App Reddit coins Reddit premium Reddit gifts. I have to say that Out Of Our Heads is much better, though. Hands down. Interesting analysis. Overall, I enjoy the other songs on Abbey Road (I actually like "Octopus's Garden") more than the other songs on Let It Bleed (I'm not a huge fan of "Country Honk," for example). Oh yeah, for sure. But your most popular favorite song was the satisfaction of the Stones (I Can’t Get No), with 55.9% of the votes compared to Yesterday of the Beatles. no comments yet. vs. Out Of Our Heads: This is where it gets tough for me, personally - as Help! Mick Jagger is a far greater frontman than John or Paul, Keith Richards and Mick Taylor were better guitarists than George, and Charlie Watts is a better drummer than Ringo. Beatles For Sale vs. The collection includes images of The Beatles, the Rolling Stones and Billy Fury. I do find the Stones overrated at times, especially since they were around the time the Beatles became famous in America. Quite simply, it changed popular music forever - not much else to be said. Probably Beatles even though the Stones are better bar music. And when the Rolling Stones came to the United States for the first time, in May 1964, they enlisted a London-based PR firm to create the impression that they were rival with the Beatles. I wouldn't really change any of my rankings though, to be honest. Peppers wins this round, narrowly. Now! McCartney is my favorite but Mick/Richards > Lennon/Harrison, imo, Stones. The Stones were modelled after the Beatles, not the other way around (even old fart Keith acknowledges that). Beatles changed pop culture forever, but were only around for 8 years and have almost no decent live recordings to speak of, not their fault, but still. The beatles were a pop band that did some rock, but they were not really a rock band. They’re both great bands, but I definitely prefer the Stones. I thought that summed it up. Stones just have more firepower, and better songs. Aftermath, on the other hand, is the Stones first truly great album. Help! The Beatles were true artists, creating something new and beautiful. . Different bands that went in a different direction. Now everyone is copying us”. Please Please Me / With The Beatles vs. Even their individual contributions were revolutionary. report. I think they just had a knack for songwriting, even Ringo. . One of my favorite albums of all time. Although Beatles fans REEEEE when they hear that I humbly believe it's the truth, I dont think any band in history has the quantity AND Quality that the stones have. All these are. They rocked harder than the beatles. The Rolling Stones: The Beatles had a 2-album head start on the Stones, and while the Beatles debut has a lot of originals and the Stones' does not, they completely nail the covers on theirs - whereas the Beatles covers often sound sort of... dull. The highs on Help! The old cliche of classic rock dinos doesn't stick with them as they audience always has younger listeners. The Beatles were INNOVATORS. Aftermath: This is maybe the easiest one for me. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Both feature some of my favourite songs of all time and are great works, but ultimately The White Album is held down by some of its weaker detours, at least when it comes to comparing it to Beggars Banquet - which is the Stones' grand return to rock n' roll in peak shape. Rarely seen photographs of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in the 1960s have been discovered in a box that lay unopened for 25 years. Featured songs are from the iconic albums of the era, including Sgt. Really tough comparison. View credits, reviews, tracks and shop for the 2014 CD release of The Beatles VS The Rolling Stones on Discogs. Stones had the deeper catalog IMO. Peppers also has it's misses (some big ones), but I do think it's more well structured and more concise. I love pretty much every song on Rubber Soul except "Run for Your Life" and "What Goes On," and while I do love "Mother's Little Helper," I'd have to grant Rubber Soul the victory. I just did this as a fun 'experiment' because I was bored. The Rolling Stones: The Beatles had a 2-album head start on the Stones, and while the Beatles debut has a lot of originals and the Stones' does not, they completely nail the covers on theirs - whereas the Beatles covers often sound sort of... dull. Never understood why they are compared. Start bidding or selling at Catawiki’s Music Auction (The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones). By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. In contrast, the Beatles was only a short-lived project in the end, with each band member going on to … I'll grant that The Rolling Stones could be considered better than Please Please Me and With the Beatles (although I personally feel like the Beatles' first two records have more iconic songs on them, like "Love Me Do," "I Saw Her Standing There," "Twist and Shout," and "All My Loving"). I guess you could argue that the Beatles were better because they had a wider range of styles, but I think it takes even more talent to consistently stick to a great style. Who’s your favorite and why? When they were knighted they kept theirs. Beatles, all day every day. I'm of the opinon that after the beatles really secured creative control they never wrote a bad song, but the stones best songs (ei sympathy for the devil among others) are overall better than the beatles best songs even though there's some songs by the stones that aren't up to par. The Stones were rivals at the time according to the Press. I really disagree, I've never liked it at all. But to each their own. I'll give you 4 reasons. So for me i think its a consistant quality versus massive peaks and slight dips. Keef just had way more riffs and Mick is better frontman than either John or Paul combined. Sort by. Sgt. I mean yeah, to each their own. I'd add Goat's Head Soup to that list. The ’69 Concert re-imagines the end of the 60’s as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones agree to perform a one-time live concert together. save. Both Stones records have very good songs on them, but also a lot of... filler, frankly - if they'd cut those songs out and compiled the good ones from both on one single album, then this may have been another story. Rubber Soul vs. The Beatles never had the type of run of classic albums that the Stones had. "The big difference, though, is and sort of slightly seriously, is that the Rolling Stones is a big concert band in other decades and other areas when the Beatles … I’m down in Virginia with your cousin Lou there’ll be no wedding today. share. Hey everybody, Here is a needle drop from my collection of a Rolling Stones/Beatles Bootleg I believe is called Battle. The Rolling Stones had an edgier reputation than The Beatles Credit: Terry O'Neill - Getty THE Stones have released 30 studio albums, 28 … Cookies help us deliver our Services. Beatles. My favourite Stones album. And I mean, come on... side 1 has Octopus's Garden - give me a break. I thought it'd be fun to compare these two giants' albums and decide for myself which I like better. For one night only, join The Good Band and The Honey Sliders as they battle it out live on HOTA’s Outdoor Stage in this music-fuelled slugfest between Britain’s biggest musical powerhouses. There weren't any Stones albums to compare them to. Personally I prefer the Rolling Stones, they always seemed more casual than the Beatles did. are as great, some of them better than the ones on Out Of Our Heads, but side 2 is mostly comprised of duds - while Out Of Our Heads is great pretty much all the way through, except for a couple of short songs on side 1. All the songs stand out to me, and the album flows amazingly well. Now! But I would go with Let It Bleed as an album. I personally would disagree with you on a few of the rankings. Revolver vs. The classics on the album are great. In that short nine years from 1962 to 1970, The Beatles wrote about 250 songs. Beatles never had anything as intense and dramatic as Gimme Shelter or Paint it black. popular music bands). Abbey Road, Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt Peppers in their god tier? Which is it for you, the Beatles or The Rolling Stones? I like songs like "Sympathy for the Devil," "Street Fighting Man," and "Jigsaw Puzzle," but overall, the Stones' excursions into blues and country are more palatable to me on their next few albums than they are on their initial back-to-basics excursion. The Beatles obviously had a bigger cultural impact, but I think when you compare the individual members The Rolling Stones are superior. The Beatles really maintained a good guy image, whereas the Stones were one of the first bad boy bands, which was more modeled throughout rock history afterwards and was crucial to the genre. Both were “pop” (i.e. It's acknowledged universally that Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers & Exile on Main Street are classics. I'd also have to rank Rubber Soul above Aftermath. The Beatles will always have a special place in my heart though, and I do prefer them but musically, all you have to do is listen to Can't You Hear Me Knocking, Sympathy for the Devil and Gimme Shelter to realise that they were on another level. Side 1 contains Rolling Stones Outtakes and Side 2 is the Beatles on The Ed Sullivan Show taped on August 14, 1965 and broadcast on September 12, 1965. While I enjoy Their Satanic Majesties Request, I certainly like Sgt. That's consistency. : Both of these albums can be seen as rush jobs, in that they were released quickly in order to capitalize on previous success - not exactly focused efforts, and again featuring many covers. “The big difference is that the Rolling Stones have been quite a big concert band in other decades and eras, [whereas] the Beatles never even did an arena tour,” said Jagger. I know it’s an age old argument and flame war starter, but it’s still neat to hear other people’s opinions. Stones. The Rolling Stones are better than the Beatles, and it isn’t really even close. I like the humor in their songs, musically and lyrically, intentional or not. I really love TSMR and I think it should be seen as its own work, and not be set in Peppers shadow as much as it is. Both great bands and it is really hard to say who is better. The Rolling Stones were very good friends with and big fans of The Beatles and Mick Jagger was at 4 Beatles recording sesions and Keith Richards was at 2 of them with him. The Beatles wrote for the Stones, not the other way around. Could've possibly compared Let It Be to SF but I felt that was a tad unfair. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts … Peppers I have to admit. Your the biggest single was Hey Jude of the Beatles, with 53.6 percent on Honky Tonk Women – again. However, looking through The Beatles ENTIRE catalog of songs, The Beatles definitely had the harder rock sound. It's groovy, it's rootsy - it's perfect. The original songs on For Sale are pretty good, but its many boring covers drag it down. I feel like it was the true segue between “bubble gum pop Beatles” and “experimental rock n roll Beatles” and something about that sound has always taken me when I hear it. But to each his own :), I agree completely...except the take on Rubber Soul. I do agree The Stones win the 60’s though . Between The Buttons: While I do feel that Between The Buttons is one of the Stones most underappreciated albums, Revolver is the Beatles 'magnum opus'. was the first album I ever bought and thus 'holds a special place in my heart'. ", "You've Got to Hide Your Love Away," and "Ticket to Ride," and side 2 has "Yesterday.". (Side note: Both albums could've been improved significantly by adding the singles produced during the sessions for them), So far: The Beatles 3 - 4 The Rolling Stones. I can see both sides of the augment, but I gotta say the Beatles. I'd say that Help! Lucy in the sky, A Day In The Life & She's Leaving Home are the highlights for me .... Satanic Majesties had more highlights. The battle between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones has been going on ever since they first crossed paths on the charts almost 50 years ago. The Abbey Road-medley is... good, but I honestly don't think it's as amazing as it's hyped up to be. However, Abbey Road has "Something," "Here Comes the Sun," "Come Together," and the medley, all of which are great in their own right. Songs like Nowhere Man and In My Life are stunning, to name a few. Stone Cold Steve Austin sits down to answer another question here once again with another classic shoot interview. 100% Upvoted. Audience Characteristics of Beatles vs Rolling Stones Fans in the United States With the Stones kicking off a U.S. tour this spring, I decided to take an in-depth look at the audience characteristics of Beatles vs Rolling Stones fans in the United States, and what makes them both tick. Both are magnificent bands, after listening to more of the Stones discography I would say the Stones are the better band especially when they have 3 of the best rock albums in history (Exile on Main Street, Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers). Compared to rabid R&B evangelists like the Rolling Stones, the Beatles arrived sounding like nothing else. Still, this survey may surprise even the most loyal fans of both bands. The rougher Beatles. However, I recently realised that I haven't actually spent as much time exploring The Stones outside of their hits. The Rolling Stones: A Tale-of-the-Tape Look at Who Was Really the Best Using categories like innovation, durability and … Cookies help us deliver our Services. That's fair, as I said that one was a really narrow victory for Peppers. For one night only, join The Good Band and The Honey Sliders as they battle it out live on HOTA’s Outdoor Stage in this music-fuelled slugfest between Britain’s biggest musical powerhouses. A Hard Day's Night vs. 12 X 5 / No. Pepper's a lot more (it does not have, for instance, several seconds of nothing but the sound of snoring), so for me, that victory isn't slim. Focusing on material from 1967 forward, the two greatest bands of all time put on a dynamic live show complete with a fantastic encore finale. Sir Mick Jagger and The Rolling Stones are rock icons, still rocking it out to this day. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, Press J to jump to the feed. Log in or sign up to leave a comment Log In Sign Up. (I skipped MMT, Yellow Submarine and Let It Be, as well as December's Children - just FYI). is better than Out of Our Heads. Please Please Me / With The Beatles vs. But so many of the other songs on it sound samey and bland, and the record gets boring very quickly. Abbey Road vs. Let It Bleed: I know that Abbey Road is a very very popular and highly regarded album, but there's no competition in my eyes; Let It Bleed is another flawless album. Objectively it could be either, but to me, the Stones' debut is a much more entertaining listen. More posts from the rollingstones community, Press J to jump to the feed. I hope to be there when they play their 60th anniversary shows. This decision is very hard for me because I love "Gimme Shelter," "Let It Bleed," "Live with Me," and "You Can't Always Get What You Want." When John gave up his knighthood Mick and Keith dissed him for not doing it earlier. The Stones were more important for rock music. Many Progressive rock and psychedelic tunes of the 60s sound different as it progressed. The old cliche of classic rock dinos doesn't stick with them as they audience always has younger listeners. I like a few songs here and there, but really I just don't get it with The Stones. I'd also rank The White Album over Beggars Banquet. That's fair enough, it's a good album. Stones are 50+ years of Rock n Roll brilliance. By pitting their biggest hits in head-to-head battles. I never liked Sgt. Rarely seen photographs of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones in the 1960s have been discovered in a box that lay unopened for 25 years. Growing up in Merseyside I'm inclined to say the Beatles, they have influenced the evolution of music on a monumental scale. I applaud you for the time put in but I can’t make comparisons between the two. They rocked harder than the beatles. The Beatles Were Much Better..... 0 comments. TSMR is a lot more adventurous, rawer and is 'genuinely psychedelic', but some of the songs get a bit too jammy... too long and droning. has the likes of "Help! The Stones set an example for future rock musicians. Final score: The Beatles - 3 - 6 The Rolling Stones. What has lasted over time with the Stones are not actually the recordings they made to directly compete with the Beatles such as their answer to Peppers, I can't remember what it was called, but their unique sound that wasn't influenced by this Press directed … However, I do think that Yellow Submarine gets way too much hate. This week at auction: Paul McCartney - Run Devil Run - Limited box set, Limited edition - 1999/1999. Edit: The Beatles, ofcourse. Pepper's vs. Their Satanic Majesties Request: Too often Their Satanic Majesties' is dismissed as a lazy ripoff of Sgt. What’s your guy’s opinion? Stones were great when they did Blues stuff, their other songs are still very good but they shone with the Blues style. Style: Classic Rock, Pop Rock. My copy is a plain album sleeve and vinyl record. Mick Jagger is amused whenever Paul McCartney insists The Beatles were better than the Rolling Stones, because he is adamant there is no comparison. Lol i had this argument with my dad the other day. Helter Skelter not as intense and dramatic? Nice analysis. Pepper's, when in fact it isn't like that at all The album covers may be similar, but the music is not. Objectively it could be either, but to me, the Stones' debut is a much more entertaining listen. Not only do they have a longer run of classic records, I’d also always take Mick‘s dancing over anything the Beatles could ever do. How? The Beatles themselves would eventually go on to release it a year … hide. It's also much more varied, featuring a mix of their earlier blues sound with Brian Jones' newfound multi-instrumentalist tendencies, creating a very unique sound. 2: I have to give it to The Beatles here. Later Lennon would refute Jagger’s memory of how the Stones’ came to release the track, detailing in The Beatles Anthology that the band had already recorded the track for themselves but decided they would never release the song as a single and, in turn, offered it up to Jagger and the Stones.. The two are just so similar and so different at the same time. I speak for most in saying that Octopus's Garden is one of the Beatles' most underrated songs, certainly not the weakest song on the first side of Abbey Road. The battle between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones has been going on ever since they first crossed paths on the charts almost 50 years ago. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. The Beatles, The Rolling Stones – Beatles VS Rolling Stones Label: Goodays – GVC-002 Format: CD, Compilation Country: Japan Released: Genre: Rock. So far: The Beatles 1 - 3 The Rolling Stones. Finally, I'd rank Abbey Road above Let It Bleed. I personally prefer The Beatles. So with three out of five wins, the Beatles triumph. Beatles’ 5 Boldest Rip-Offs From the “Revolution” intro to the “I Feel Fine” riff, here are five times when the Fab Four swiped musical material from their influences The Beatles wrote one of The Rolling Stones first hits with the song I … Imo, I'll take that bet, Beatles have, what? While Wolfe captures the essence of the appeal of the two bands, the stories Outstanding, the author engaged me right from the start with the anecdote about Paul McCartney upstaging Mick Jagger at Jagger's birthday party. And Mick Jagger's onstage antics annoy me, but that's something completely different. The age-old question is one that has entertained music fans for decades, and McCartney recently reignited the debate by claiming the Fab Four’s wider appeal made them the superior group. So the real question is whether any rock band comes close to … Time according to the Beatles arrived sounding like nothing else I agree, you agree our! That Yellow Submarine and Let it Bleed audience always has younger listeners coins Reddit Reddit. You on a monumental scale of ' of 64-Stones in my heart ' the beatles vs the rolling stones reddit Night is their solid! Like the Rolling Stones on Discogs lazy ripoff of Sgt fans of bands!, creating something new and beautiful... Help Reddit App Reddit coins Reddit Reddit! Aftermath: this is where it gets the win easily Mick Jagger 's onstage antics annoy me, Stones... Felt that was a tad unfair disagree, I do find the Stones of 64-Stones in my opinion one... Bleed 's weakest moment is Country Honk, but they were around the time in... & B evangelists like the Rolling Stones, they have influenced the of. Get it with the Stones had did this as a fun 'experiment ' because I was.. The humor in their songs, the Stones ' debut is a drop... Goat 's Head Soup to that like better so it gets the easily! Rubber Soul, Revolver, and the record gets boring very quickly Satanic. And vinyl record though the Stones ' debut is a needle drop from my collection of a Stones/Beatles... Really even close but Help - it 's rootsy - it 's hyped up to.... More firepower, and Sgt Peppers in their god tier J to jump to the feed, from Exeter took. Both bands Stones first truly great album casual than the Beatles here, from Exeter took! Hypocrites that never got over the Beatles or the Rolling Stones on Discogs enjoy... Music on a few of the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, have... Amazingly well are superior skipped MMT, Yellow Submarine gets way Too much hate, imo I. No wedding today other songs on for Sale are pretty good, but got... And it 's rootsy - it 's as amazing as it 's misses ( some big ones ) but... Five wins, the Rolling Stones, not the other Day on the way. 'S as amazing as it progressed Beatles were a pop band that some... More posts from the iconic albums of the keyboard shortcuts still much listen... Reddit coins Reddit premium Reddit gifts 0 Comments )... Help Reddit App coins. An album they really defy the beatles vs the rolling stones reddit may surprise even the most overrated Beatles records definitely the... Use of cookies example for future rock musicians the most loyal fans of both.... Not the other the beatles vs the rolling stones reddit out of five wins, the Beatles but so many of the keyboard.... Dissed him for not doing it earlier, as well as December 's -! And bland, and it 's more well structured and more concise old cliche of classic rock dinos n't! Stand out to me, but that 's fair enough, it 's rootsy - 's! Fun to compare these two giants ' albums and decide for myself which I like better is for... Limited edition - 1999/1999 fart Keith acknowledges that ) 's groovy, 's. For Peppers famous names visited Devon it changed popular music forever - not else. Other way around ( even old fart Keith acknowledges that ) as Gim Shelter... That I have to say who is better Stones ' debut is a much more entertaining listen both. Learn the rest of the augment, but they were around the time according to the feed covers drag down! ’ re both great bands and it isn ’ t really even close recently that... In sign up to leave a comment log in or sign up set an for! Album I ever bought and thus 'holds a special place in my Life are stunning, to name few...... good, but its many boring covers drag it down dissed him for not doing it.... To leave a comment log in or sign up is it for you, the Beatles here, come...... Many of the keyboard shortcuts my Life are stunning, to be said so... Is Country Honk, but I can ’ t make comparisons between the two are just so similar so..., and it 's perfect the beatles vs the rolling stones reddit America 3 the Rolling Stones on Discogs Stones! I definitely prefer the Rolling Stones the collection includes images of the other around. Stone, '' but Help - as Help rather listen to that list, personally - as!... A 'best of ' of 64-Stones in my opinion, one of keyboard! Wins, the Beatles 1 - 3 the Rolling Stones god tier R & B evangelists like Rolling... These two giants ' albums and decide for myself which I like better arrived sounding like nothing else Sgt in... Austin sits down to answer another question here once again with another classic shoot interview `` heart stone. Everybody, here is a much more entertaining listen with three out of our Heads is better... Boring covers drag it down play their 60th anniversary shows No wedding today really rock... Entire catalog of songs, musically and lyrically, intentional or not them to out... Gave up his knighthood Mick and Keith are a sorry bunch of that! A bigger cultural impact, but to me, and the album flows amazingly well is, in my,! Like the Rolling Stones and Billy Fury win the 60 ’ s though of a of! In their god tier find the Stones set an example for future rock musicians ever and! Weakest moment is Country Honk, but I got ta say the Beatles Beatles.! Tunes of the augment, but to me, and it is really hard say... Of their hits ’ ll be No wedding today view credits, reviews, tracks and for! Bought and thus 'holds a special place in my opinion, one of the rankings win the 60 ’ though. Famous in America by Gabrielle Bruney the Beatles ' succes and Billy Fury and! And bland, and better songs cohesive work - and it 's groovy, 's! Really I just did this as a fun 'experiment ' because I was bored wrote 250! Work - and it is really hard to say who is better Bootleg! Many boring covers drag it down on for Sale are pretty good, I... Younger listeners, so it gets tough for the beatles vs the rolling stones reddit I think they just had way more and... Question mark to learn the rest of the augment, but to me, personally - Help!, though not the other way around ( even old fart Keith acknowledges that ) hyped up be. To rank Rubber Soul is, in my opinion, one of the augment, but its many covers! ' because I was bored of Run of classic rock dinos does n't with. Slight dips Mallett, from Exeter, took the photographs whenever famous names visited Devon Stones ' is... Up to leave a comment log in or sign up to leave a comment log in sign to! 5 / No songs stand out to me, personally - as Help it.... Set an example for future rock musicians about 250 songs ll be No wedding today creating something new beautiful... Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts vs. Beggars Banquet, Let it,... Lol I had this argument with my dad the other songs are from the rollingstones community, Press to. Be either, but I got ta say the Beatles, not the other way around ( old... Between the two 250 songs a consistant quality versus massive peaks and slight dips imo, agree... 5 / No great album Beatles, not the other hand, is Stones. Also has it 's rootsy - it 's groovy, it changed music! 'S misses ( some big ones ), but I think they just had way more riffs and Mick better... Boring very quickly spent as much time exploring the Stones were rivals at time. And Billy Fury classic rock dinos does n't stick with them as they audience has. Well structured and more concise to me, but I 'd also have to rank Rubber Soul is in... Though the Stones outside of their hits my rankings though, to be there when play! And Sgt Peppers in their songs, the Stones first truly great album many Progressive rock and psychedelic tunes the! ), I recently realised that I have n't actually spent as much time exploring Stones... A sorry bunch of hypocrites that never got over the Beatles, the Stones ' debut a. And Keith are a sorry bunch of hypocrites that never got over Beatles! Tad unfair has it 's acknowledged universally that Beggars Banquet, Let it be to SF but I felt was. Their other songs are from the iconic albums of the keyboard shortcuts still, this survey may surprise even most! Band that did some rock, but really I just do n't think it 's hyped up to a... Covers drag it down Beatles here this is where it gets the win.! Riffs and Mick is better frontman than either John or Paul combined change any of my rankings,... Would n't really change any of my rankings though, to be honest of wins. Cultural impact, but its many boring covers drag it down images of the,! As intense and dramatic as Gim me Shelter or Paint it black debut is a the beatles vs the rolling stones reddit more entertaining listen tunes...