[noodles]

In light of Vince's Beatles thread, I figured why not ask the whole board the age old question.

Personally, I'm a Stones guy. They always had an edge, Keith writes awesome rhythm parts, and Jagger is one of the greatest frontmen who ever lived.

Sympathy for the Devil. 'Nuf said.

[eaeolian]

Beatles. How is this even an argument? The Stones sold a ton of records and released some classic songs. The Beatles changed rock music, and pioneered many of the production techniques that would lead to modern recording.

[Drew]

The Beatles certainly take the cake in studio techniques, true. However, I'd argue Hendrix is really the one who took the bar and ran with it, and from a songwriting persppective, I'd argue that nothing from even the Beatles later period could touch "Sympathy for the Devil," "Paint it, Black" or "Rocks Off" for sheer snarl and edginess, and while the Beatles did their famous world music experimentation that gives them a lot of accalades for their creativity, I'd argue that the Stones long-running flirtation with american country music, giving lesser-known tracks like "Dead Flowers," "I've Got the Blues," and "Torn and Frayed" was equally fruitful and important, and 40 years down the road arguably far more listenable.

Also, some of the more edgier of the Beatles music was done in response to what other guys were doing - I believe "Helter Skelter" was recorded in response to either a The Who track or a Hendrix track where some reviewer said something diisparaging about how it was one of the most noisy, god-awful things he'd ever heard, and one of the beatles said "let's record something that sounds like what he's describing!" The Beatles were arguably first and foremost a realyl good pop band, until the Stones, the Doors, the Who, and Jimi started to take the "guitar" sound they were pioneering, meld it with the blues, and make something darker and more evil.

Really, it's like the Pulp Fiction question, except there's a third type of person - a Stones person. I'm the third.

[ohio_eric]

It's The Beatles easily. Actually I'm not much of a Stones fan at all. They have some good songs but as a whole their body of work doesn't inspire. I even consider The Who a much better band than the Stones. Both The Beatles and The Who were far more progressive and pushed the envelope in ways the Stones never did.

Day in the Life > Sympathy for the Devil

[sakeido]

I don't like either one. Both have some good songs, but on the whole I detest both bands. Where is option C? I'll take Led Zeppelin.

[Chris]

Where's the "I'd rather listen to Nirvana" option? Because that's what I'd pick.

[Makelele]

The Beatles for me. I can't stand about anything the Rolling Stones have ever done.

[Drew]

Pulled some dates off Wikipedia to sort of get a better sense of their development.

The White Album was released in '68, while Abby Road was in '69, on the Beatles end. Sgt. Pepper's was 67-ish, I forgot to check the date.

On the Stones side, "Ther Satanic Majesties Request" was recorded in '67 as a response to Sgt. Pepper's. '68 brings us "Beggar's Banquet," followed by Sticky Fingers in '71 and Exile on Main St. in '72.

What really jumps out, to me here, is that while the Beatles didn't really come into their own until after '66 or so, the Stones also didn't really become the band they're known for until they stopped trying to be the Beatles. Their Satanic Magesties is really pretty forgettable, but if you spin it side by side with The White Album and with Beggar's Banquet, the departure they took is absolutely stunning. The Beatles got increasingly psychadelic and more polished, while the Stones sort of said, "Fuck it," and delved into blues and (importantly, given Richards eventual famous adaptation of open G tuning) country, and got far grungier, edgier, and more ragged. The Stones may never have approached the perfect symphonic sheen of the best of the Beatles offerings, but they also never came within a ten mile radius of the ragged, devil-may-care "fuck off" sort of attitude that the Stones hit from '68 through '72. The Stones, by comparison, were releasing edgy, agressive, vicious underproduced blues/rock and country/rock albums with all the finesse of a hand gernade tossed into a sunday school picnic while the Beatles were releasing sprawling, symphonic opuses.

In short, after Sgt Pepper's/Their Satanic Magesties, I can't think of any two bands that were any more different than The Beatles and the Stones, and any comparison after 1967 can only be done on personal taste.

[Variant]

Yes. No, not both choices... the band Yes.

[Popsyche]

I had to go Beatles, but really not by much. I listened to more Motown back then, or proper psychedelia. The Stones wrote some great songs, but generally followed what ever trend was current, like Disco/Some Girls. They really didn't break any ground, just wrote good R n' R songs.

Fuckit! I was listening to the Stooges!