Canuck Audio Mart

The Beatles basically invented modern pop/rock music. They are so far ahead of anything before, during, or since that comparison is meaningless. Even their "filler" tunes - stuff like "Your Mother Should Know" and "Baby You're a Rich Man" from Magical Mystery Tour are absolute killer tracks which demonstrate a true gift; a Mozart-like ability to write perfect melody and harmony - kind of like the melodies just effortlessly emanated from Lennon/McCartney.

In "comparing" these two bands, let us remember that a few months after perhaps the most famous, groundbreaking and innovative album in rock history (Sgt Pepper), an inferior and forgettable copycat attempt (Satanic Majesties Request) was released. This would suggest to me that deep down, even the Stones recognized the Beatles were better!!!

Hey, don't get me wrong - I like the Stones - they released some great albums (Beggar's Banquet, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street) but in no way are they even remotely close to the Beatles when it comes to creativity, inventiveness and sheer song-writing ability. Nobody is.

I agree with hfisher.

I grew up as a Stones fan. I barely remember the Beatles breaking up. So the Stones were still real. I never paid any attention to the Beatles a boy band.

It was as an Adult that I first really heard the Beatles thinking I had heard all of their music on the radio a million times. Boy was I wrong!

Their debut album was wayyy better than I thought it would be and each album (more or less) just kept getting better. They WERE just boys at the start as well. The Beatles is a story of extremely talented boys growing into men. Then they ended it with IMO maybe the best album of all time with a heroin addicted John and the band hardly on speaking terms, Abbey Road.

I think a better debate is who is the second best band of all time. Stones, Who, Zep, AC/DC etc. of which I like all of them. None of the them has the remote range of the Beatles.

This range is also is one reason many do not like them.

As time passes I have no doubt which will be the bigger band and by a mile. Like Pnuemonic said the volume of quality music is just staggering.

What he said.

Sure did not want to see an end to Beatles Stones thread. I did not mean the Stones did not have their own drug problems!

Beatles when you are trying to impress the girls; Stones when the guys are over
Cheers,
Csiz

agreed, Pretty Things, I got laid my first time by an older girl with Rosalyn in the background, yup it took about 3 minutes

Neither. Gotta go with Led Zep.

The Stones were just another UK blues band, whereas the Beatles changed the face of popular music forever. End of discussion. (by the way, I didn't read the preceeding entries, so if someone else made this point already . . . ).

The all time great rock and roll debate! When I was in grade 9, back in 1966, you couldn't like both, or at least admit the fact. I loved the Stones, especially after Satisfaction was played to death a year earlier. Out of our Heads was the first album I bought at around the same time I got the Beatle's Help from a record club our family belonged to. No contest between these two LP's.

I recall getting the Stones Aftermath as a present for my 14th birthday which in my opinion is still the Stone's best album, especially when you consider the British import version. However, the Beatles were into their crossover period with their Revolver album which my parents bought for me on a trip to Rochester. I played that record non-stop and was a Beatles convert immediately. Many people consider this to be the Beatles finest moment, so along with Aftermath, this proved to be a watershed moment for both these bands.

The Stones seemed to flounder a little with Between the Buttons, Satanic's Majesty... and so on, but came back with a vengeance with Let It Bleed, Beggar's Banquet and Exile on Main Street which were all truly excellent rock albums. That was it for me though. Sticky Fingers was a little contrived sounding to me, and I didn't care for anything that followed. So for me, the Stones were a 60's band and the Beatles were their only competition. In the end I would have to give the nod to the Beatles, for their sheer creative writing abilities. What other band was popular with both university professors and school children? And take a listen to Daytripper on a good system with the volume up. These guys could rock in a tasteful, controlled forceful way that was unique. A great lead guitar intro. followed with the bass mimicking the guitar, some tambourine (those were the days huh?) and then the drums. Exquisite!

The Rolling Stones was probably my favourite band, but the Fab Four was the best band.

I think some of it comes down to the fact one band broke up and the other went on. For me I think this is a plus for the Beatles and admit I am not sure how I would feel if they carried on with a dozen more medicore albums. Would they still be so great? Then I have talked to others how dislike the Beatles because their big ego's got in the way and let women (Yoko) get in the way of a band. (which is the boys) Some like the Stones for this fact they did not let women ruin the party. My personal opinion would be better on the Stones if they broke up after their 3 big albums.

Beatles were hungry, working class Liverpool boys as someone already stated.
They pushed their talent to the limits copying and perfecting their idols and influences.
Look at Pauls "Let it Be". He loved Simon and Garfields "Bridge over Trouble Water", and said he wanted to write a balad like that. I think he did and more.

Stones were boring for me as a kid. I wasn't into blues or hard rock.
As one musician said to me once. "Stones are the biggest bar band in the world."
That could very well be a compliment too.

For me, The White Album was and remains a brilliant recording, but the rest of the Beatles just never moved me.

As for the Stones, they never were and never pretended to be anything other than white boys adapting electric blues. This they did brilliantly. I still listen to Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Get Yer Ya-Yas Out, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, all classics of the genre.

After It's Only Rock 'N' Roll they seemed to get formulaic and I lost interest. But those four albums, plus perhaps one or two others, will always stand out wherever rock 'n' roll is treasured.

I have Osama Bin Laden locked in a bunker,with nonstop Beatles music being pumped in though some Bose 901s,under my house.Hes totaly lost his marbles.

Stones all the way!!!!!!

Now, if you ask me which band had the best PRODUCER, then it's a no call.
But which band might do better with a rookie producer?

All Stones, baby!

Both Beatles box sets shipped to me today (finally)! so much Beatles catchup is due very soon.

And the big Mac does mono!

"The Beatles being something kind of nice and the Stones being something dangerous"

That was the marketing for both groups, but the opposite was true. The Beatles rocked Hamburg, drinking on-stage and hanging with thugs and whores. Their manager, Brian Epstein, forced them to present themselves as nice boys back at home to get air-time. Only after the Beatles became popular and the mainstream became more accepting of rock bands, the Rolling Stones were able to break into mainstream with a 'bad boy' image which was completely fabricated by their management.

Similarly, a lot of the competition between the two groups was media-fabricated to create drama. There was some friendly competition, but it was very friendly, and at the time no one was in any doubt that the Beatles were the better band.

Growing up in the seventies, I listened to far more Stones than Beatles, but now I'm all Stoned out. When I hear the Stones on the radio I usually switch stations. I can live the rest of my life without listening to Satisfaction again. Meanwhile, I can listen to the Beatles all day long.