posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 05:51 PM
I'm going with the Stones, as all the songs mentioned above (by them are great), my tuppence is going to be "Wild Horses" or "Street Fighting
Man"... I think the Stones were more of a cohesive unit and just got on and did their thing, whereas the Beatles, were more "scenesters", very
adroidly picking up on shifts in culture, or pushing shifts in culture - which is a very valid thing, but they were chameleons, perhaps too much so
for my tastes as can be witnessed later in the solo careers.
As well, if you take the peak eras of both bands say 60's to the end of the 70's the Stones were more consistent in output, "Obla Di, Obla Da"???
Wtf?, sorry, WTF??? The Beatles, good as they were, did make some hideous contributions to music. ...as an aside, the only one I really have any
time for is Ringo and that's because of Thomas the Tank Engine.
Although, on the flipside, the Stones, should've died with dignity years ago, but in their way, they still kinda kick ass, Charlie Watts rocks and
Keef? What the hell? That man needs his own ATS thread, has heen been genetically/chemically engineered?
I really like some Beatles stuff, Abbey Road and Yellow Submarine are great, but possibly I find the Beatles to be more "cultural phenomena" than
great rock band... also, listen to someone covering either band, the Stones come up trumps most times... Swell doing "Streetfighting man" or
Social Distortion doing "Under my Thumb", very different acts, putting their spin on these songs, but still, very much Stones songs... covering the
Beatles (I find) tends to make the songs sound a little pallid.
bestness to you all