Faceoff: Beatles or Rolling Stones?

[instant karla]

http://www.times-news.com/opinion/local_story_225111831.html?keyword=topstory

the link will take you to the article (too long to post here). from there you can click on "homepage" to vote.

when i voted earlier today, there were 133 voters. the beatles had 57.89% of the vote. the stones were at 42.11%.

[Georgie Girl]

Well, guess who I voted for! :teeth1:

I would say the Stones are the second greatest, tho.

[Marmalade Skies]

Well, if I'm on a Beatles fourm...I wonder who I'd pick...hmmmmmmm...


But The Stones are 2nd hands down

[Georgie Girl]

Did we ever have a poll here on who the second greatest band is?

[sourmilkpinky]

We may have..but you should start a new one....lots of new faces/opinions to add to it.
I wouldnt choose the Stones tho.

[AMBOISVERT]

We may have..but you should start a new one....lots of new faces/opinions to add to it.
I wouldnt choose the Stones tho.

You have interesting taste, Milk. C'mon, tell us who you would choose.


Tony

[instant karla]

i just checked the poll:
356 votes
48.88% for the beatles
51.12% for the stones

[AMBOISVERT]

I just created a poll on the subject over in "Not Only a Northern Song." I voted for the Stones, but it was hardly an automatic decision.

Tony

[digdad]

i just checked the poll:
356 votes
48.88% for the beatles
51.12% for the stones
With vote 357, I was able to bump the Beatles up to 49.02%.

[62hofner]

I don't see a link to the poll. I must enter in my vote to ensure the greatest rock and roll band ever gets the most votes!

Ok, never mind... I found it. Beatles are still lagging by about 1%!

[jesgear]

The Beatles 49.59%
The Rolling Stones 50.41%
363 votes counted

[jesgear]

Sorry, double post.

[jesgear]

Sorry, triple post (how did that happen?)

[BeatleGuy]

It's really not fair to compare them because they are two different kind of groups. The Rolling Stones are a great gritty rock n roll band who perform great onstage. The Beatles were mostly about their music which was the best and how they pushed the boundries with experimenting , always evolving and on that end everyone else takes a backseat to the fab four. If the Beatles were still a group today, it would still be their music we would be discussing before any other band period. You can guess my vote haha.

[lennonluvr9]

looks like i got in too late. Apparently you had till noon today to vote.

[mccartneymaniac]

are you kidding the beatles hands down as kieth said all we have is one guy we replace the rest but you had 4 front men no topping that nuff said i think

[instant karla]

http://www.times-news.com/siteSearch/apstorysection/local_story_232115957.html

Published: August 20, 2006 11:59 am ** ** **

Faceoff Responses: Beatles or Stones, which is the greatest Rock band?

No contest: Stones rule, and Keith Richards is just dreamy

To the Editor:
You go Dave Boden!
I had the pleasure of seeing the Stones in concert a few years ago in Pittsburgh. Although it cost me a small fortune, it was worth it! The Stones are timeless, they just keep on rockin', just as they did 40 years ago! Their music is never the same as the Beatles were. And beside that, Keith Richards is the only man I would leave my husband for! There is no comparison in between the two bands.
Kathy Biser, Keyser, W.Va

Good argument for Stones, but Beatles ‘undisputed’ champions
To the Editor:
Hello. Both articles are really great. But I must say that The Beatles are the undisputed, universally recognized champions of Rock 'n' Roll music. :-)
All the best from the Republic of Macedonia.
Igor Noveski, Macedonia

In abandoning touring, Beatles gave up claim to Rock
To the Editor:
The Rolling Stones win hands down. Once the Beatles stopped touring, they wrote songs that could not be performed on stage, and because of this distinction, they became an avante-garde band. In my mind, the clear distinction is that Rock ‘n’ Roll bands must tour.
William Olsen, Hickory, N.C.

By any measure, from sex & drugs to live shows, Stones rule Rock
To the Editor:
Very interesting poll! OK, I’m a Stones fan, so call me biased, but there is no question who is the greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll band. For one thing, the Beatles were more pop music, The Stones personify Rock ‘n’ Roll. The Beatles are the “Coca-Cola”, the Stones are the Jack Daniels. The Beatles wanna hold your hand — the Stones want to spend the night together. If the situations were reversed, i.e., if the Stones only lasted seven years, and the Beatles were still around 44 years later, does anyone really believe that the Beatles could have kept it together personally as well as creatively all these years?
The Beatles were great in their way, of course. But much of their fame lies in the very fact that they were short-lived and left the world hungry for more. It’s the same reason Marilyn Monroe, James Dean, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix and many others still resonate today. We are left with so many “what-ifs.”
But there are no what-ifs about The Stones, and we take it for granted that they are still around. They continue to ROCK well into their 60’s — yet another trail they are blazing. Their new music is perhaps not on the level as their heyday (arguably 1965-1978) but it is still high quality and has matured along with them. And they are second to none in the live setting — something the Beatles were never able to pull off.
* Rock-n-roll thrives when it’s live: Advantage — Stones
* Rock-n-roll is sex and drugs: Advantage — Stones
* Rock-n-roll is edgy and rebellious: Advantage — Stones
* Rock-n-roll will never die: Advantage — STONES!
Cindy Parkhurst, Trenton, Mich.

Kerns finally gets one right; Beatles rivaled Jesus in popularity
To the Editor:
I disagree with Richard often, but when he is right, he is right! The Beatles have the be the GREATEST Rock ‘n’ Roll band of all time, but I can see the argument for the Stones (longevity). But as John Lennon once said “We’re more popular than Jesus.” I am not certain that he was correct, but close for sure.
Jack Nelson, Cumberland

Performance standard key in giving the title to The Stones
To the Editor:
Hi there.
Yes it is an interesting debate and I’m sure the argument will continue while Rock ‘n’ Roll music is played.
The Beatles did produce some magnificent recordings. Sgt. Pepper and Rubber Soul would top my list. But the Rolling Stones also had their recording moments too in the 1960s ... Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed more than match the above two Beatles’ classics.
But music and Rock ‘n’ Roll is much, much more than classic recordings — performance is the key here.
Do you remember Elvis’ 1968 TV Special performance, how about the Beatles on the Abbey Road studio’s roof performance?
The Stones have continued to perform, indeed the Stones were exuberant live performers in 1966 — the same year the Beatles gave it up ... 40 years all down the line the Stones are still exuberant live performers and people still want to watch and listen.
That’s what makes them the Greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll Band.
Andrew Brennan, Dundalk, Ireland

Stones still draw a crowd, but so do museum dinosaurs
To the Editor:
Dave Boden writes very passionately about Keith Richards but hardly makes a case for the Rolling Stones. The Stones are a good band but no one with any musical knowledge has ever taken their self-styled “World's Greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll Band” tag seriously.
In the ‘60s they were little more than a Beatles tribute band — (a cover of I Wanna Be Your Man helping to kick-start their chart career; The Beatles great All You Need is Love and Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band prompting the distinctly lackluster We Love You and Their Satanic Majesties Request).
After the Beatles broke up in 1970, the Stones were overshadowed by Led Zeppelin. In the ‘80s the Stones became an irrelevance and in the 90s an ‘embarrassment.
Yes, they still tour and fill large venues. But museums and dinosaurs are always popular.
The Stones have never in 40-plus years produced an album as groundbreaking as the Beatles’ Revolver, Pepper, or the White Album — or the Beach Boys' Pet Sounds for that matter — and now that they are living on their back catalogue, it is doubtful they ever will.
There is no argument: The greatest band — not just Rock ‘n’ Roll — ever is, and always will be, The Beatles.
Len Roberts , Essex, England

Christian group Glass Harp beats out both Stones and Beatles
To the Editor:
About Sunday morning Faceoff: It’s neither the Beatles or the Stones. Glass Harp beats them both. They’re a Christian Jesus band of the late ‘60s.
Robert Hickey, Cumberland

Poll question should be re-phrased to allow other bands
To the Editor:
The question should not be, “Which is the world’s greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll Band, but which band was better, the Stones or the Fab Four. There were many bands from the 50s to the 80s who were just as talented.
Joe Petrone, Berryville, Va.

[darkhorse]

Very interesting poll! OK, I’m a Stones fan, so call me biased, but there is no question who is the greatest Rock ‘n’ Roll band. For one thing, the Beatles were more pop music, The Stones personify Rock ‘n’ Roll. The Beatles are the “Coca-Cola”, the Stones are the Jack Daniels. The Beatles wanna hold your hand — the Stones want to spend the night together.

That was particularly funny. :laugh5:

Well, who wrote "We Love You" and "She's a Rainbow" then?

And, in the other hand, who wrote "Why Don't We Do it In the Road" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"?

Useless polls, they are. Useless. No serious music critic these days would ever dare to say that any band is better/more important than The Beatles. You could like others more but you can't deny the overall importance. Rolling Stones have released about 40-50 albums, and whilst there are some excellent ones, some of the others are really weak (anyone heard their last single "Rain Fell Down"? I recommend you to not do it)... The Beatles needed about six years to change the music forever.

[pepperland67]

That was particularly funny. :laugh5:

Well, who wrote "We Love You" and "She's a Rainbow" then?

And, in the other hand, who wrote "Why Don't We Do it In the Road" and "I Want You (She's So Heavy)"?

Useless polls, they are. Useless. No serious music critic these days would ever dare to say that any band is better/more important than The Beatles. You could like others more but you can't deny the overall importance. Rolling Stones have released about 40-50 albums, and whilst there are some excellent ones, some of the others are really weak (anyone heard their last single "Rain Fell Down"? I recommend you to not do it)... The Beatles needed about six years to change the music forever.

I totally agree with you, I think the Stones are really overrated. And I thought this before becoming a Beatles fan too. I saw the Stones in concert and it was nothing like seeing Paul live. And sorry if anyone disagrees with me, but Paul was much better halftime entertainment at the Super Bowl. I had a good laugh when the Stones premiered their new video on the soap opera Days Of Our Lives! IMO, that goes against their rocker image - having your video debut on a soap.

[feelfab]

If there had not been Beatles, there wouldn't be Stones; they would have foundered as a good blues cover band. And that writer who claims that Jimi Hendrix is an icon only because he died young hasn't been listening to his Jimi records lately. Stones--great, great band, but they've rarely done anything cutting edge. 'Sympathy for the Devil'--a brilliant song/performance is the only really innovative thing they did. And as I've said elsewhere, I'm a fan of the Stones. But compared to the Beatles? No contest. The good news is we get both. Y'gotta love rock'n'roll.

[helter_skelter#9]

definately the beatles