The Beatles versus The Rolling Stones

I have often heard it said that the best way to gauge someone’s musical tastes and leanings is to ask them one key question.  Beatles or Stones?  So it was with this thought in mind I posted this question up as a poll on my blog and also encouraged discussion via my Facebook page.

First off the overwhelming results after 14 votes were, 11 (78%) voted for The Beatles and 3 (21%) voted for the Rolling Stones.  But it was only after reading and joining in with the online discussion that I started to understand why.

Most people felt that whilst certain Stones songs were excellent in their own right (the most notable mentions were ‘Jumpin Jack Flash’, ‘Gimme Shelter’ and ‘Sympathy for the Devil) they were happy with a ‘best of’ collection to satisfy their Rolling Stone craving without wishing to delve much deeper into their back catalogue.  But the consensus seemed to be that The Beatles made more albums you could happily listen to in their entirety many times over with a fresh perspective gained each time.  Also it was suggested that as the bands sound changed more over their career that there was more music available to cater for a wider selection of moods and emotions.

Revolver

I’m unsure about the veracity of some of these opinions, but I have to admit I am a Beatles man myself.  There music seems more complex, whilst also being more accessible and while I do enjoy the gritty sound of the Stones I find myself becoming bored after a few albums.  A ‘best of’ collection often suffices and then I’m happy to move on, much like the views expressed by others online I suppose.

It is quite possible and dare I say it after some of the opinions I have read, acceptable to like both bands though.  I guess we may all have our preferences, but we can easily enjoy both.

Some expressed a preference for the Beatles for their political stance and said that Lennon’s views attracted them to the bands music.  Others suggested a better question would have been ‘Beatles or Beach Boys’ as their sound was more comparable.  Others suggested the Beatles are better due to their superior album production values and cited George Martin as a huge element in the bands success and appeal.  Some said The Rolling Stones music was for more rebellious types and the ‘Beatles V Stones’ question was often asked to quickly and easily judge new friendships.  It was also suggested that the Stones had more swagger and attitude and that the Beatles were a little sterile in comparison.  It was said that considering the Rolling Stones lasted longer than the Beatles the latter band achieved comparatively so much in a short space of time and their music still has impact and sounds timeless today.

Exile on Main Street

So as you can see the thoughts and opinions were pretty varied and made for enjoyable reading.   There is plenty to mull over and comment on if you have any thoughts yourself, I would love to hear your take on it.

I guess the best way to end things would be to paraphrase Mick Jagger.  When asked in ‘65 whether his group was better than the Beatles, he diplomatically stated that "they do what they do best and we do what we do best".  You can’t say fairer than that!