Written by Hamird on 10.05.2008 at 13:43

Written by Zenzero on 08.05.2008 at 18:09

Written by Hamird on 08.05.2008 at 12:45

if i could some other bands like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin i would never chose any of them. but since there is just battle between these two bands i would chose Rolling Stones because this band is nearer to music what i like.

led zeppelin or pink floyd or deep purple...... i can't mentioned all of them!! i choose the most rappresentative bands! my dad (i know is quite ignorant but he) don't knows songs of led zeppelin or pink floyd as he knows beatles and rolling stones songs!! so i wuold choose the most populars and maybe famous!!!

To be the most famous doesn't mean that to be the best,, that is totally different.
Beatles is more famous that Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin but it doesn't mean that their works are better than them.

where did i say that they're the best???

Written by Zenzero on 10.05.2008 at 15:00

Written by Hamird on 10.05.2008 at 13:43

Written by Zenzero on 08.05.2008 at 18:09

Written by Hamird on 08.05.2008 at 12:45

if i could some other bands like Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin i would never chose any of them. but since there is just battle between these two bands i would chose Rolling Stones because this band is nearer to music what i like.

led zeppelin or pink floyd or deep purple...... i can't mentioned all of them!! i choose the most rappresentative bands! my dad (i know is quite ignorant but he) don't knows songs of led zeppelin or pink floyd as he knows beatles and rolling stones songs!! so i wuold choose the most populars and maybe famous!!!

To be the most famous doesn't mean that to be the best,, that is totally different.
Beatles is more famous that Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin but it doesn't mean that their works are better than them.

where did i say that they're the best???

You didn't. i just said it in general that Beatles fame is not a reason that they're the best.

Beatles: the RS have good look, good ideas, but definitely no rythm!

Rolling Stone, all the way they r better in any way, even womans, look woma of Lennon and look woman's of Jagger that saying enough

Written by EddieGunner on 31.07.2008 at 17:03

Rolling Stone, all the way they r better in any way, even womans, look woma of Lennon and look woman's of Jagger that saying enough

what
Sorry man Beatles was better, musicicaly, each album are good, song, but Rolling Stones only in blues days and early days , nowdays thay are poswers, and world wont se such big poswers anymore , thay do it more how other posers can do it togehter
Thay dont live rock n roll life anymore, thay just live rick people party life whit rock n roll elements into it

Look Ac/Dc thay are still trOO

AC/DC is good band
but Beatles no fuckin way , maybe it's just taste and nothing else, but stones were stronger band,
well to Bridges to Babylon was nice album

The Beatles, for me.

The Beatles

I've started this topic and poll to confirm to myself that Beatles are better than rolling stones.... but at last in these months I'm listening a lot to rolling stones and I'm revaluing them!!

Everybody knows Beach Boys trumps both, though.

Without doubt, The Beatles. They tore up the popular music rule book, and turned it inside out in the late 60's. And almost certainly influenced more bands in just about every conceivable genre of music (including metal) than any other band. I do like some Rolling Stones stuff, cant deny the greatness of songs/riffs like "Satisfaction" or "Paint It Black"! But overall, I love The Beatles music more. xD

Rolling Stones, just because of Paint It Black

Written by Kennoth on 14.01.2011 at 04:41

Rolling Stones, just because of Paint It Black

just cuz of it???? I prefer by far helter skelter than it!

Written by Zenzero on 14.01.2011 at 15:00
just cuz of it???? I prefer by far helter skelter than it!

A lot of people think "Helter Skelter" is a prototype metal song, and I agree. Its not quite metal, but it definitely has a rawer, more aggressive edge than any of the popular music of the day. "Paint It Black" is an amazing song, definitely one of my faves from the Stones. xD

Beatles it is.

Got nearly all their full lengths on vinyl.

Magical Mystery Tour is awesome.

Written by Angelic Storm on 14.01.2011 at 15:12

Written by Zenzero on 14.01.2011 at 15:00
just cuz of it???? I prefer by far helter skelter than it!

A lot of people think "Helter Skelter" is a prototype metal song, and I agree. Its not quite metal, but it definitely has a rawer, more aggressive edge than any of the popular music of the day. "Paint It Black" is an amazing song, definitely one of my faves from the Stones. xD

I'm missing The Who in this pool.
I was going for them. Anyway... The Beatles and The Rolling Stones have their qualities...
Before i go any further, let me comment your post Angelic Storm.
There is a little story behind helter skelter.
Less than a year before this song was writen by Paul McCarthney, The Who released a song called "I can see for miles", wich was, at that time, the "heavyiest" and most raw song, yet not as raw and heavy like helter skelter. There was "Young Man Blues" too, that was a pretty heavy "blues" based rock. Paul wanted to do the sickiest song ever wrote to prove that they were better than the who. Than he wrote Helter Skelter. I may prefer the who, but HS was way too more agressive and raw...i may say i was the first real "metal song", along with "Born to be wild" from Steppenwolf and all songs from the first album of Blue cheer. All that influenced deeply Black Sabbath, who, to my opinion are the band who "founded" the real basis to heavy metal, and the style itself. Just Like Venom did to Black metal... As so the styles evoluted and get much more different than their predecessors. THat's why many young folks say that Venom isn't BM and Black Sabbath isn't Heavy...or anything like that.

For the bands, i say...
The Beatles was more experimental, and one of the first rock bands to try new elements in songs... THey were using Citara and other strange instruments and sounds since rubber soul, wich was released in 1965. Rolling stones only tried new real stuff in 1967.... Althought "Paint it black" has scitara and is from 1965! kkkkk
But i think The Beatles is too much overated. For me, their only great, when i mean great, i mean huge masterpieces, are "The White Album" and "Abbey Road", those both are state of art. Sgt. Peppers? Has some good tunes... Like the title track, a day in the life... But nothing much more than that. For me, off course.

Rolling stones, by the other hand, are always full of energy, and WAY much more rock and roll than Beatles ever was.
Well... I mean, From their first album, till Bridges to Babylon, They released many rock and roll anthens and good songs... And had always a consistent carrer. Nothing brilliant as Abbey Road, but good , VERY GOOD, MUCH Above average material.

But i think Beatles whin a little bit...just a little... Because they got some tunes i can't get out of my head...

The Beatles all the way.
Always hated The Rolling Stones.

The Beatles...just.

Easy for me. I enjoy most of The Beatles' albums and like only a handful of Stones songs. The Beatles were more influential and far more consistent.

I've collected both of their discographies and most of the time my preference is based on mood...but I guess I'm the contrarian, because I voted Rolling Stones. Their work from the 60s through the early 70s had a lot darker feel to it imo. They also had a decent sense of humour...like Far Away Eyes and Dead Flowers. Mostly, though, it was the dark vibe they had that I like... Paint It Black, Sympathy for the Devil & Play With Fire all come to mind.