» OLD MESSAGE ARCHIVES «
The Pop Culture Information Society...
Messageboard Archive Index, In The 00s - The Pop Culture Information Society

Welcome to the archived messages from In The 00s. This archive stretches back to 1998 in some instances, and contains a nearly complete record of all the messages posted to inthe00s.com. You will also find an archive of the messages from inthe70s.com, inthe80s.com, inthe90s.com and amiright.com before they were combined to form the inthe00s.com messageboard.

If you are looking for the active messages, please click here. Otherwise, use the links below or on the right hand side of the page to navigate the archives.

Custom Search



Subject: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/08/02 at 09:37 a.m.

Though I enjoy a lot of The 'Stones songs very much....I would still choose the Beatles ;)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Tarzan Boy (Guest) on 05/08/02 at 12:32 a.m.

I'm an Elvis man, but I'll choose The Beatles any day. Hell, I love David Bowie's version of "Let's Spend The Night Together" more than I do the original. There's also The Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony." Which means that a cover can actually supercede the original in rare examples such as these two.

Tarzan Boy

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Jessica on 05/08/02 at 12:42 a.m.

The Beatles. I've never liked The Rolling Stones.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Tantrum O Neal on 05/08/02 at 02:15 p.m.

The Rolling Stones forever!!! Sorry Beatles fans.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Bobo on 05/08/02 at 03:03 p.m.

No offense taken whatsoever.

Quoting:
The Rolling Stones forever!!! Sorry Beatles fans.
End Quote

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: CeramicsFanatic on 05/08/02 at 04:45 p.m.

Of the two I would have to say The Beatles.  I'm not a big Stones fan but I do like a few of their songs.  

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 05/08/02 at 04:46 p.m.

Definately the Stones. I never did like the Beatles, together or separately, although I will admit to occasionally liking a particular solo song of one or more of them. I remember years ago reading an article by Lester Bangs, where he said that one could take out one's old Stones records and play them and they still sounded fresh, whereas old Beatles reacords just sounded "dated." I have to agree with that, although I'm sure any Beatles fans would beg to differ.  :D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 05/08/02 at 07:18 p.m.


Quoting:
Definately the Stones. I never did like the Beatles, together or separately, although I will admit to occasionally liking a particular solo song of one or more of them. I remember years ago reading an article by Lester Bangs, where he said that one could take out one's old Stones records and play them and they still sounded fresh, whereas old Beatles reacords just sounded "dated." I have to agree with that, although I'm sure any Beatles fans would beg to differ.  :D
End Quote


Oh my god Zella, what are you on ?   :) ;) :D (Just kidding)

Seriously though, I'm both begging and differing here !

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Banasy on 05/08/02 at 07:31 p.m.

The Beatles.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 05/08/02 at 08:38 p.m.


Quoting:

Oh my god Zella, what are you on ?   :) ;) :D (Just kidding)

Seriously though, I'm both begging and differing here !
End Quote



Just don't throw any rotten tomatoes! (I'm fully armed with lawn darts).  ;D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 05/08/02 at 08:45 p.m.


Quoting:


Just don't throw any rotten tomatoesEnd Quote



I don't remember the Beatles doing that song - must be one of those low-rate Stones B-Sides  :P

FBVP

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 05/08/02 at 10:40 p.m.


Quoting:


I don't remember the Beatles doing that song - must be one of those low-rate Stones B-Sides  :P

FBVP
End Quote



Golly Gee, Fuss, Who's Driving Your Plane?  ;D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 05/09/02 at 04:57 a.m.


Quoting:


Golly Gee, Fuss, Who's Driving Your Plane?  ;D
End Quote



At the moment , the pilot is slumped over the control stick !!  ;)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/09/02 at 05:47 a.m.


Quoting:


At the moment , the pilot is slumped over the control stick !!  ;)
End Quote

Nnno I'm nnot...now gimmie back that Bottle, Fussy boy!

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 05/09/02 at 11:35 p.m.


Quoting:

Nnno I'm nnot...now gimmie back that Bottle, Fussy boy!
End Quote



Sounds like you're both "Torn and Frayed."  ;D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 05/10/02 at 05:57 a.m.


Quoting:


Sounds like you're both "Torn and Frayed."  ;D
End Quote



We've both "seen much better days"  ;)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/10/02 at 05:59 a.m.

Quoting:


Sounds like you're both "Torn and Frayed."  ;D
End Quote

Maybe, but a least our faces still look good....Mick & Keith, now That's "Torn & Frayed!" ;)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: My_Sharona on 05/10/02 at 07:24 a.m.

I don't agree with Lester Bangs, The Stones are a great band and everything, I'm more than partial to a number of their songs, but I believe Beatles songs are timeless.  As the record sales for their recent 1 CD may indicate.

I think the main difference between the two bands is that in 40 odd years, the Stones never really evovled from more than just a rock band.  Whereas the Beatles, in less than 10 years, evolved continually.  Their ballads had more meaning, their rockers packed more punch, their psychadelics were more trippy, and their cute, funny songs were more cute and funny.

I think that about wraps it up for me.  

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: RockandRollFan on 05/10/02 at 09:12 a.m.

Quoting:
I don't agree with Lester Bangs, The Stones are a great band and everything, I'm more than partial to a number of their songs, but I believe Beatles songs are timeless.  As the record sales for their recent 1 CD may indicate.

I think the main difference between the two bands is that in 40 odd years, the Stones never really evovled from more than just a rock band.  Whereas the Beatles, in less than 10 years, evolved continually.  Their ballads had more meaning, their rockers packed more punch, their psychadelics were more trippy, and their cute, funny songs were more cute and funny.

I think that about wraps it up for me.  
End Quote


Well said....I compleat, oops!....completely agree ;)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Cat_Lover on 05/10/02 at 09:36 p.m.

Definately THE BEATLES! As a matter of fact, I have tickets to an up coming McCartney concert!

Peace,Cat Lover

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Bobo on 05/11/02 at 00:28 a.m.

Hope you will enjoy it. You will, of course, share a concert review with us? I'm sure a lot of us would be glad to know what an experience you had.

Quoting:
Definately THE BEATLES! As a matter of fact, I have tickets to an up coming McCartney concert!

Peace,Cat Lover
End Quote

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 05/11/02 at 00:43 a.m.


Quoting:
Definately THE BEATLES! As a matter of fact, I have tickets to an up coming McCartney concert!
End Quote



I have to 'fess up -- I actually went to a Paul McCartney concert once myself in 1976. And I even own several of his 45s. :-[

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 05/11/02 at 02:32 a.m.


Quoting:


I have to 'fess up -- I actually went to a Paul McCartney concert once myself in 1976. And I even own several of his 45s. :-[End Quote



Aha !  So you're not as Stoned as you'd like to have us believe...  ::)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Cat_Lover on 05/11/02 at 08:09 a.m.

Sure will, Bobo! This will be my third time seeing Paul! First time was in 1990, then 1993 and now! The concert will be Friday, May 17, here in South Florida!

Peace,Cat Lover

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: lebeiw15 on 05/12/02 at 03:26 p.m.

Beatles.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Arcfire on 05/23/02 at 02:13 p.m.

I like both bands but I have to give the "nod" to the Stones, the Beatles songs did not have as much impact to me as Paint it black, and Mothers little helper did

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Natski on 05/24/02 at 04:11 p.m.

The Beatles.... I haven't heard many of the Stone's songs and I just think the Beatles are ... better ;D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Hairspray on 05/25/02 at 10:25 p.m.

One of the World's Greatest Rock & Roll Bands, IMO.

"As the self-consciously dangerous alternative to the bouncy Merseybeat of the Beatles in the British Invasion, the Stones had pioneered the gritty, hard-driving blues-based rock & roll that came to define hard rock. With his preening machismo and latent maliciousness, Mick Jagger became the prototypical rock frontman, tempering his macho showmanship with a detached, campy irony, while Keith Richards and Brian Jones wrote the blueprint for sinewy, interlocking rhythm guitars. Backed by the strong, yet subtly swinging rhythm section of bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts, the Stones became the breakout band of the British blues scene, eclipsing such contemporaries as the Animals and Them."
"The Stones always flirted with the seedy side of rock & roll." - AllMusic.com

They're still going strong after all these years. That deserves a merit in it's own right. They're a whole different style than The Beatles. Both bands great in their own categories. I like The Beatles, but prefer The Rolling Stones because of their edginess.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Davester on 05/26/02 at 03:03 a.m.

Definately the Stones.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: bigdog on 05/26/02 at 05:53 p.m.

bigdog has been a stones fan for years, beatles could never have lasted as long, as we all know!

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Christinea on 06/02/02 at 02:01 p.m.

If I would rate the Beatles and the Rolling Stones:

The Rolling Stones: -9999999999999999999

The Beatles:9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999.

I am the biggest Beatles fan in my hometown.

Sorry Rolling Stones fans but they aren't exactly.....good!!

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Reddyrules on 06/22/02 at 08:00 p.m.

The Beatles........

           At this stage it is      The Beatles      ~9      
                               The Rolling Stones      ~ 4

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 06/22/02 at 09:06 p.m.

Good thing too Reddy

I've been watching !

Fuss  ;D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 07/05/02 at 04:57 p.m.


Quoting:
The Beatles........

           At this stage it is      The Beatles      ~9      
                               The Rolling Stones      ~ 4
End Quote



Quoting:
Good thing too Reddy

I've been watching !

Fuss  ;D
End Quote



Good thing, eh?

You are in major trouble now! -- I owe you big time on this one! :o

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 07/05/02 at 07:54 p.m.

Bring it on then Zella !

You'll have to have have a mighty good reach from where you are  ;D

FB  :)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Paul-Lynn on 07/07/02 at 02:47 p.m.

I love The Monkees just as much as I love The Beatles. ;D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Zella on 07/08/02 at 01:30 a.m.


Quoting:
Bring it on then Zella !

You'll have to have have a mighty good reach from where you are  ;D

FB  :)
End Quote



Okay, cancel reach! Shall we settle for influence? Maybe some cassette tapes that repeat subliminally in the background: Stones are #1 Stones are #1 Stones are #1....

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Paul-Lynn on 07/09/02 at 06:29 p.m.

Zella - The Beatles were and always will be number 1. The Rolling Stones are slowly going downhill.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Hairspray on 07/09/02 at 07:38 p.m.


Quoting:
Zella - The Beatles were and always will be number 1. The Rolling Stones are slowly going downhill.
End Quote



It's all a matter of opinion, Paul-Lynn.  ;)

For those of us who liked music which was a little edgier, The Stones were our answer.

The Beatles did their thing and had their glory, The Monkees did their thing and had their glory, The Rollingstones also did their thing, had their glory and are still going.

That's a great show of endurance at the very least and they're in good company. Think of all of the rockers still around after their over-the-hill parties. Aerosmith is a good example. The Rollingstones are still quite good, especially live. They'll probably die on stage and it's all good. Whatever makes 'em happy.  :)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Paul-Lynn on 07/10/02 at 09:06 a.m.

Peter Tork was on 7th Heaven twice. Micky and Davy came to Ontario on my 18th Birthday to do a concert at a casino. The Monkees are still going. Paul McCartney is still going. He is still writing new songs. :P

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: TripsMom on 07/17/02 at 05:48 p.m.

Beatles-Pre LSD

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Tomborino on 09/29/02 at 03:44 p.m.

It's like comparing Bonds vs. Ruth, Williams, Aaron, Mays.  It can't be done with justice.  When they were both alive and well and active, I believe the Beatles were, without a doubt, more popular.  Both bands were fantastic with fantastic songs.  To think that the Stones are RnR superstars 40 years later is mind blowing.  Totally unbelievable  It would be different if they were crooners--but Rock and Roll stars.  You have to respect them for that kind of endurance and dedication.

Quoting:
Though I enjoy a lot of The 'Stones songs very much....I would still choose the Beatles ;)
End Quote

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Tomborino on 09/29/02 at 03:48 p.m.

Did anyone happen to catch the stones at Randwick Raceway in Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia in 1973?  

Quoting:
Though I enjoy a lot of The 'Stones songs very much....I would still choose the Beatles ;)
End Quote

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Amin on 10/14/02 at 10:47 a.m.

I agree..the beatles were years ahead of their time..they were the first band who worked as a team and every member sang and contributed equally to all the tracks in their albums..as far as i am concerned, any band that goes on stage today or records, owes something to the beatles... the stones...are different in their own right...and to be fair..its not fair to compare both bands..the stones had an attitude of their own ...the rolling stones and beatles were such good friends...that they never wanted to compete with each other, whenever keith richards was about to release his album, he would ask john when they would release theirs--the point of the matter is, that the stones and the beatles did not compete..but loved and respected each other for their music..

Quoting:
The Beatles. I've never liked The Rolling Stones.
End Quote

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Crazy Don on 10/14/02 at 10:53 a.m.

OMG!  I didn't put my 2¢ in yet!

I've always liked the Beatles better than the Stones.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Dude on 10/14/02 at 04:36 p.m.

Depends on my "mood" at the time. Their both R&R icons; and arguing that one is better than the other....naaahh. ::)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: FussBudgetVanPelt on 10/15/02 at 10:43 p.m.

Zella !  Are you listening ?

Beatles...............

:P :P :P :P :)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Steve_H_2002 on 10/16/02 at 03:34 p.m.

Beatles.  I like them Ringo songs, and I think the Stones hung around together too long.  

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Deemoe7301 on 01/09/03 at 11:29 p.m.

WOW!!! I DEEPLY respect both bands VERY MUCH, but in this poll,I will have to say I love the BEATLES way more!  ;)

The Beatles were a group that was constantly growing musically. They were without a doubt,musical geniuses!! I also appreciate the respect and love they had for eachother, in and out the studio...As for MJ and the crew...well, "The Stones" are STILL Rock'nRoll  Stars after all these years!! You gotta give it to 'em. :o :o Nevertheless.....

THE BEATLES RULE!!!! :D :D :D :D

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: shazzaah on 01/10/03 at 08:08 a.m.

I love them both. I cannot choose,no way no how. Their styles are completely different so there is no fair way to compare. Hmmm....I probably listen to more of the songs by the Beatles, but I listen to the songs by the stones louder. ;D  hoonnnkkeeey tonk women...

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Rice Cube on 01/10/03 at 09:22 a.m.

Two different styles.  I like them both though, but it does depend on my mood.  If I'm in a reflective mood, I go with Beatles exclusively.  But if I'm in a good mood, I'll go mixed.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: RockandRollFan on 01/10/03 at 01:48 p.m.

So far it's 14 to 5 so far...the Lads from Liverpool Rule ;)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Deemoe7301 on 01/10/03 at 09:20 p.m.


Quoting:
So far it's 14 to 5 so far...the Lads from Liverpool Rule ;)
End Quote



No doubt about it!  :D  

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: PF4Eva on 01/11/03 at 10:35 p.m.

Between the Beatles and the Stones, I'll say:

John, Paul, George, Mick, and Keith
Heaven's Evelen (Sub. of Fab Four)
Lennon/McCartney/Jagger/Richards
Yoko/Bianca/Jeri Hall

IOW, it's a toss-up of both. The Beatles had to get a little help from their friends to get satisfaction. And the Stones couldn't get no satisfaction. ::)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Crazy Don on 01/11/03 at 10:38 p.m.

Well, on the other message board I visit, the site has a battle of the bands between the Stones and the 5th Dimension.  Guess who I voted for?  And for good measure, I gave Zella a ghost vote in the balloting!  (Of course her vote didn't go to the 5th Dimension!)

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Michwolv on 01/12/03 at 04:09 p.m.

The real issue here is...if it weren't for the Beatles, there would be no rolling stones to listen to now.  The Beatles did everything from starting the British invasion which allowed to Rolling Stones to truly become popular, to writing or calloborating on stones songs.  The Beatles made it big in their own right.

Not only do the Beatles have the biggest selection of great songs, but they were the most influential band to later musicians through their performances and production techniques in the studio...nobody compares to them.

Subject: Re: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones

Written By: Steve_H on 01/12/03 at 04:16 p.m.

If it wasn't for Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf there'd have been no Rolling Stones.
If it wasn't for Little Richard and Buddy Holly there'd have been no Beatles.