Sunday, 23 March 2014

FROST’S EARLY POEMS

Mending Walls

Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,

That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it

And spills the upper boulders in the sun,
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing: 5
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made, 10
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbor know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go. 15
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
“Stay where you are until our backs are turned!”
We wear our fingers rough with handling them. 20
Oh, just another kind of outdoor game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across 25
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, “Good fences make good neighbors.”
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
“Why do they make good neighbors? Isn’t it 30
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offense.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall, 35
That wants it down.” I could say “Elves” to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there,
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed. 40
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbors.” 45

Summary

A stone wall separates the speaker’s property from his neighbor’s. In spring, the two meet to walk the wall and jointly make repairs. The speaker sees no reason for the wall to be kept—there are no cows to be contained, just apple and pine trees. He does not believe in walls for the sake of walls. The neighbor resorts to an old adage: “Good fences make good neighbors.” The speaker remains unconvinced and mischievously presses the neighbor to look beyond the old-fashioned folly of such reasoning. His neighbor will not be swayed. The speaker envisions his neighbor as a holdover from a justifiably outmoded era, a living example of a dark-age mentality. But the neighbor simply repeats the adage.

Form

Blank verse is the baseline meter of this poem, but few of the lines march along in blank verse’s characteristic lock-step iambs, five abreast. Frost maintains five stressed syllables per line, but he varies the feet extensively to sustain the natural speech-like quality of the verse. There are no stanza breaks, obvious end-rhymes, or rhyming patterns, but many of the end-words share an assonance (e.g., wall, hill, balls, wall, and well sun, thing, stone,mean, line, and again or game, them, and him twice). Internal rhymes, too, are subtle, slanted, and conceivably coincidental. The vocabulary is all of a piece—no fancy words, all short (only one word, another, is of three syllables), all conversational—and this is perhaps why the words resonate so consummately with each other in sound and feel.

Commentary

I have a friend who, as a young girl, had to memorize this poem as punishment for some now-forgotten misbehavior. Forced memorization is never pleasant; still, this is a fine poem for recital. “Mending Wall” is sonorous, homey, wry—arch, even—yet serene; it is steeped in levels of meaning implied by its well-wrought metaphoric suggestions. These implications inspire numerous interpretations and make definitive readings suspect. Here are but a few things to think about as you reread the poem.

The image at the heart of “Mending Wall” is arresting: two men meeting on terms of civility and neighborliness to build a barrier between them. They do so out of tradition, out of habit. Yet the very earth conspires against them and makes their task Sisyphean. Sisyphus, you may recall, is the figure in Greek mythology condemned perpetually to push a boulder up a hill, only to have the boulder roll down again. These men push boulders back on top of the wall; yet just as inevitably, whether at the hand of hunters or sprites, or the frost and thaw of nature’s invisible hand, the boulders tumble down again. Still, the neighbors persist. The poem, thus, seems to meditate conventionally on three grand themes: barrier-building (segregation, in the broadest sense of the word), the doomed nature of this enterprise, and our persistence in this activity regardless.

But, as we so often see when we look closely at Frost’s best poems, what begins in folksy straightforwardness ends in complex ambiguity. The speaker would have us believe that there are two types of people: those who stubbornly insist on building superfluous walls (with clichés as their justification) and those who would dispense with this practice—wall-builders and wall-breakers. But are these impulses so easily separable? And what does the poem really say about the necessity of boundaries?

The speaker may scorn his neighbor’s obstinate wall-building, may observe the activity with humorous detachment, but he himself goes to the wall at all times of the year to mend the damage done by hunters; it is the speaker who contacts the neighbor at wall-mending time to set the annual appointment. Which person, then, is the real wall-builder? The speaker says he sees no need for a wall here, but this implies that there may be a need for a wall elsewhere— “where there are cows,” for example. Yet the speaker must derive something, some use, some satisfaction, out of the exercise of wall-building, or why would he initiate it here? There is something in him that does love a wall, or at least the act of making a wall.

This wall-building act seems ancient, for it is described in ritual terms. It involves “spells” to counteract the “elves,” and the neighbor appears a Stone-Age savage while he hoists and transports a boulder. Well, wall-building is ancient and enduring—the building of the first walls, both literal and figurative, marked the very foundation of society. Unless you are an absolute anarchist and do not mind livestock munching your lettuce, you probably recognize the need for literal boundaries. Figuratively, rules and laws are walls; justice is the process of wall-mending. The ritual of wall maintenance highlights the dual and complementary nature of human society: The rights of the individual (property boundaries, proper boundaries) are affirmed through the affirmation of other individuals’ rights. And it demonstrates another benefit of community; for this communal act, this civic “game,” offers a good excuse for the speaker to interact with his neighbor. Wall-building is social, both in the sense of “societal” and “sociable.” What seems an act of anti-social self-confinement can, thus, ironically, be interpreted as a great social gesture. Perhaps the speaker does believe that good fences make good neighbors— for again, it is he who initiates the wall-mending.

Of course, a little bit of mutual trust, communication, and goodwill would seem to achieve the same purpose between well-disposed neighbors—at least where there are no cows. And the poem says it twice: “something there is that does not love a wall.” There is some intent and value in wall-breaking, and there is some powerful tendency toward this destruction. Can it be simply that wall-breaking creates the conditions that facilitate wall-building? Are the groundswells a call to community- building—nature’s nudge toward concerted action? Or are they benevolent forces urging the demolition of traditional, small-minded boundaries? The poem does not resolve this question, and the narrator, who speaks for the groundswells but acts as a fence-builder, remains a contradiction.

Many of Frost’s poems can be reasonably interpreted as commenting on the creative process; “Mending Wall” is no exception. On the basic level, we can find here a discussion of the construction-disruption duality of creativity. Creation is a positive act—a mending or a building. Even the most destructive-seeming creativity results in a change, the building of some new state of being: If you tear down an edifice, you create a new view for the folks living in the house across the way. Yet creation is also disruptive: If nothing else, it disrupts the status quo. Stated another way, disruption is creative: It is the impetus that leads directly, mysteriously (as with the groundswells), to creation. Does the stone wall embody this duality? In any case, there is something about “walking the line”—and building it, mending it, balancing each stone with equal parts skill and spell—that evokes the mysterious and laborious act of making poetry.

On a level more specific to the author, the question of boundaries and their worth is directly applicable to Frost’s poetry. Barriers confine, but for some people they also encourage freedom and productivity by offering challenging frameworks within which to work. On principle, Frost did not write free verse. His creative process involved engaging poetic form (the rules, tradition, and boundaries—the walls—of the poetic world) and making it distinctly his own. By maintaining the tradition of formal poetry in unique ways, he was simultaneously a mender and breaker of walls.

The Softening of His Image:The Road Back: Frost’s Letters

The Road Not Taken


TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;	5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,	10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.	15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.	20

Few figures in American literature have suffered as strangely divided an afterlife as Robert Frost.

Even before his death in 1963, he was canonized as a rural sage, beloved by a public raised on poems of his like “Birches” and “The Road Not Taken.” But that image soon became shadowed by a darker one, stemming from a three-volume biography by his handpicked chronicler, Lawrance Thompson, who emerged from decades of assiduous note-taking with a portrait of the poet as a cruel, jealous megalomaniac — “a monster of egotism” who left behind “a wake of destroyed human lives,” as the critic Helen Vendler memorably put it on the cover of The New York Times Book Review in 1970.

Ever since, more sympathetic scholars have tried, with limited success, to counter Mr. Thompson’s portrait, which was echoed most recently in a short story by Joyce Carol Oates, published by Harper’s Magazine last fall, depicting Frost as repellent old man angrily rebutting a female interviewer’s charges of arrogance, racism and psychological brutality to his children.

But now, a new scholarly work may put an end to the “monster myth,” as Frost scholars call it, once and for all. Later this month, Harvard University Press will begin publishing “The Letters of Robert Frost,” a projected four-volume edition of all the poet’s known correspondence that promises to offer the most rounded, complete portrait to date.

“There’s been a kind of persistent sense of Frost as a hypocrite, as someone who showed one face to the public and another privately,” said Donald Sheehy, a professor at Edinboro University in Pennsylvania, who edited the letters with Mark Richardson and Robert Faggen.

“These letters will dispel all that,” Mr. Sheehy added. “Frost has his moods, his enemies, the things that set him off. But mostly what you see is a generosity of spirit.”

The Harvard edition, which will include more than 3,000 letters from nearly 100 archives and private collections, is not the first presentation of Frost’s correspondence. An edition of selected letters was rushed out by Mr. Thompson (with index entries for “Badness,” “Cowardice,” “Fears,” “Insanity” and “Self-Indulgence”) a year after the poet’s death, followed by several smaller collections, all of which have long been out of print.

But the complete correspondence, scholars say, will show Frost in full, revealing a complex man who juggled uncommon fame with an uncommonly difficult private life (including four children who died before him, one a suicide), a canny self-fashioner who may have cultivated the image of a birch-swinging rustic but was as much the modernist innovator as T. S. Eliot and Ezra Pound.

“You see there are so many Frosts,” said Jay Parini, a Frostbiographer who was not involved with the project. “He moves among them, like everyone else, a wounded individual trying to make his way in the world.”

“The idea of Frost as a jealous, mean-spirited, misogynist career-builder,” he added, “is nothing short of nuts.”

The new collection will contain hundreds of little seen or entirely unknown letters discovered languishing in poorly cataloged archives, tucked away in books or forgotten in attics. One cache of letters turned up in a desk donated to a thrift shop near Hanover, N.H., where they became the focus of a stolen property investigation.

The first volume begins in 1886, with a charming note from 12-year-old Frost to a childhood sweetheart, and follows him through marriage to his wife, Elinor; a hard decade as a farmer in New Hampshire; three years in England; and return home in 1915, when he became a late-blooming literary star with the success of his second collection, “North of Boston.”

It contains little family correspondence (no letters to Elinor are known to survive) and few letters that touch on difficult family matters. But it does vividly show Frost’s deep ambition and confidence — “To be perfectly frank with you I am one of the most notable craftsmen of my time,” he wrote in 1913 — along with a concern to protect his family from intrusions. (“I really like the least her mistakes about Elinor,” he wrote in response to an article by the poet Amy Lowell. “That’s an unpardonable attempt to do her as the conventional helpmeet of genius.”)

The letters show his pleasure in hard-earned fame, but also his resentment. “Twenty years ago I gave some of these people a chance,” he wrote in 1915, referring to his newfound admirers. “I wish I were rich and independent enough to tell them to go to hell.”

The full publication of the letters is the capstone of an arrangement between the Frost estate and Harvard to prepare scholarly editions of Frost’s primary material, in the hopes of inspiring research into a poet whose broad popularity has not always been matched by scholarly attention. The project has not gone entirely smoothly. The 2006 publication of Frost’s notebooks, filled with drafts, fragments and sometimes cryptic aphorisms, was hailed by some critics as the most important Frost release in years but soon came under fierce attackfrom two scholars charging Mr. Faggen, the volume’s editor, with thousands of transcription errors that turned the poet into a “dyslexic and deranged speller.”

(Harvard released a 2010 paperback making what Mr. Faggen, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, characterized in a recent email as “appropriate changes.”)

Continue reading the main story

RECENT COMMENTS

regina murphy

6 February 2014

the value of acknowledging robert frost's vulnerabilities as a human being is not about dismissing the worth of his art but, perhaps, in...

rjon

6 February 2014

A half truth is that people of genius are sometimes difficult. We can generally live with that. The real problem arises when some people...

barbara jackson

6 February 2014

I pray I never become famous in this country for any reason. I'm trying hard to hide my talents under a basket, for if they were known, I...

· SEE ALL COMMENTS

That typographical skirmish, however, was nothing compared with the uproar over Ms. Oates’s short story, which drew outrage from Frost family members and the tightknit world of Frost scholars, some of whom gather each year at an informal symposium organized by Lesley Lee Francis, one of the poet’s granddaughters. “It was just mean-spirited and pointless,” said Mr. Sheehy, who together with Mr. Richardson prepared a 14-page document challenging the story’s factual underpinnings.

Ms. Oates, via email, said that the story was “really about the sensation-mongering, ‘malicious’ personal and biographical accusations that are made against a poet” when “poetry and the life should have nothing to do with each other.” Her detractors, she suggested, “had misread the story in their eagerness to attack.”

But even some fellow Frost outsiders said the Oates story might give new life to some questionable notions first advanced by Mr. Thompson, including the claim that Frost cruelly quashed the poetic ambitions of his son Carol, who committed suicide in 1940.

“The letters to Carol are very poignant,” said the novelist Brian Hall, who was denied permission by the estate to quote from Frost’s copyrighted poetry in “Fall of Frost,” a 2008 fictionalization of the poet’s life. “You see him gently trying to push him in different directions but doing his parental best to be supportive.”

Those letters, along with the rest of the surviving family correspondence (including some that has not been published), will appear in future volumes. Those installments, expected to appear at two-year intervals, will touch on some of the most sensitive subjects in Frost biography, including the commitment of his daughter Irma to a psychiatric hospital in 1947 and his relationship with Kathleen Morrison, the married woman who became his secretary, protector, primary emotional focus and, some have argued, his mistress after Elinor’s death in 1938.

Taken together, “these letters will show very clearly that the caricature of Frost’s behavior toward his family is utterly without foundation,” said the co-editor Mr. Richardson, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan.

If there’s a true revelation in the first volume, the editors say, it’s the sheer intellectual firepower Frost brings even to a casual missive, the range of references that can wind playfully from George Bernard Shaw to Gothic architecture to Neolithic archaeology, all in a few hundred words.

“He’s never thought of as an intellectual poet, but that’s because he wears all his learning gracefully,” Mr. Sheehy said. “People may be surprised by just how smart he was.”

‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’ - Time Was on Their Side

24TuesdayDec 2013

≈ Leave a comment

Time Was on Their Side ‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’

As the 50th-anniversary milestones for the Beatles and the Rolling Stones fly off like calendar pages in an old film, even the stuff of barroom debates gets elevated into book-length exegeses. At least that’s true on the evidence of “Beatles vs. Stones,” by John McMillian, and “Rocks Off: 50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones,” by Bill Janovitz. The good news is that despite some flaws, each of them justifies its extended treatment of essentially irresolvable disputes. They manage to make their cases in balanced, informed, yet still passionate terms. And, best of all, when you’re done, you don’t need to worry about a crippling hangover.

Enlarge This Image

MONITOR PICTURE LIBRARY VIA GETTY IMAGES

They wanna be your man: The Rolling Stones, November 1963.

<nyt_pf_inline>

BEATLES VS. STONES

By John McMillian

Illustrated. 304 pp. Simon & Schuster. $26.

ROCKS OFF

50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones

By Bill Janovitz

404 pp. St. Martin’s Press. $25.99.

At a New York dinner party a couple of years back, a beautiful woman — who else would dare? — teased Mick Jagger: “Everybody’s either a Beatles person or a Stones person. Which are you?” Characteristically inclined to repel even deadly serious questions with an eye roll and a shrug, Jagger took this one straight. “I’m a Stones person,” he replied.

That response is telling. Ever since they pulled ahead of the Fab Four on the hipness front in the late ’60s, the Stones have been weary and resentful of Beatles comparisons. In fact, the bands were frenemies from the start. Jagger hilariously describes being intimidated by the Beatles in their leather coats when they came to see the Stones perform in their very early days. And as Londoners, the Stones would forever be gobsmacked by having to stand in the shadow of a quartet from, of all provincial places, Liverpool. While Allen Ginsberg asserted that the Beatles made Liverpool “the center of the consciousness of the human universe,” Keith Richards saw it somewhat differently: “I mean, Liverpool is . . . as far as London is concerned, it’s Nome, Alaska.” The Beatles, to be fair, could be equally dismissive of their surlier rivals: “I think Mick’s a joke, with all that fag dancing,” John Lennon once sneered.

Nonetheless, the Beatles’ pre-eminence is undeniable. Far more than a band that you might like or dislike in relation to any other, “the Beatles are a phenomenon,” the Stones guitarist Brian Jones once evenly stated to a British journalist. In the ’60s rock solar system, they were the sun around which everything else revolved, and the Stones benefited too much from the Beatles’ reflected heat to be able to deny it. As far as America is concerned, without the Beatles’ breakthrough, there could have been no Rolling Stones. When it counted, the Beatles wrote a hit song for the Stones, talked them up in interviews and helped get them a record deal. Later on, the two camps would stagger their record releases in order not to hurt each other’s sales.

John McMillian, who teaches history at Georgia State University, negotiates these thickets with insight, care and a willingness to unsettle clichés. He can be fussy at times, as when, for example, he asserts his objectivity about his book’s subject with a blithe “I don’t try to adjudicate the question here. . . . I’m not a rock critic; I’m a historian.” (True: He’s far better at unearthing surprising material than making musical judgments.) And his writing can occasionally lurch into academese. Neither the Beatles nor the Stones, he observes, “articulated, or proved willing to defend, a coherent political cosmology.”

That said, even the most gnarled and intransigent veterans of the Beatles-Stones debates will emerge enlightened by this book. McMillian is a scholar of the ’60s underground press, and his deft references to those far-flung sources demonstrate how profoundly these bands’ songs, statements and actions roiled the counterculture. It’s hard to imagine any artist, musical or otherwise, having as direct a social impact today. And even if McMillian refuses to “adjudicate” the argument he investigates, he provides plenty of ammunition for you to wage the war, whichever side you’re on.

Our weekly debate series takes on one of the most divisive rivalries in pop music: the Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones. Which was the greater band? Which had a deeper connection with their fans, or a more lasting impact on popular music? Prepare for our call-in lines to melt; also, the Earth may crack in half. (Fair warning.)

Joining us is Tim Riley, NPR critic and author of several books on rock music including Tell Me Why: The Beatles, Album by Album, Song by Song, the Sixties and After; and Bill German, author of the memoir Under Their Thumb: How a Nice Boy From Brooklyn Got Mixed Up With the Rolling Stones (And Lived to Tell About It).

Also joining us is Rolling Stone magazine contributor Alan Light. He tells us about the magazine’s new ranking of the 100 greatest Beatles songs of all time.

Which was the better band? Tell us why below.

Today’s Playlist:

1- Revolution- Beatles

2- Street Fighting Man- Rolling Stones

3- I Wanna Be Your Man- Beatles

4- I Wanna Be Your Man- Rolling Stones

5- All You Need Is Love- Beatles

6- We Love You- Rolling Stones

7- Let It Be- Beatles

GUESTS:

Bill German and Tim Riley

Leave a comment

RSS Feed for Comments

Comments [140]

HLD from Calif

Always been a Stones fanatic…..a lot of bands play rock n roll but only one band is rock n roll…Stones In the beginning everybody wanted to b a Beatle but the Beatles wanted to be the Rolling Stones. Love both bands what I really want to know is where are the present day Stones and Beatles? In fact where r Herman’s Hermits? Where is anybody? Help somebody do something musically exciting please!

Dec. 17 2013 12:55 AM

Score: 0/0

Gigaber from Boston MA

My mother’s family will eviscerate me for this comment, but here it goes. The Beatles loose this matchup because of a drummer whose name rhymes with “bingo”. His drumming style is much like the game, simple, fun, and largely uninspiring.

Nov. 19 2013 08:02 AM

Score: 0/0

Heather from New England

The Beatles are great but I can’t stand it when people say they the Stones never innovated music, never ventured far from the blues, and never wrote deep music.
The Stones infused blues with rock n roll and they made some of the first hard rock. They were the first British bad boys. The fact that the Beatles came first is irrelevant. The Stones stayed around. You can’t argue that they should have stopped after Exile because then you lose Some Girls, Tattoo You, Steel Wheels, etc. And you just can’t dismiss albums like Bridges to Babylon and Voodoo Lounge just because they weren’t “as good” as previous albums.
The Stones have music classified under every sub-genre of rock, they do have blues, but they also have country (Wild Horses, Sweet Virginia), and some pop so it’s ridiculous to say they only stuck with the blues and one song can be incredibly different from another. They have incorporated many different sounds in their music over the years. Why would I have 566 songs by them if it’s all just the same meaningless crap?
And their lyrics are not shallow and empty. Tell me “Salt of the Earth” is not a lyrical masterpiece filled with truths. In “Coming Down Again” you have lines that read: “She was dying to survive” and “Being hungry, it aint no crime.” Tell me you can’t feel the pain in “Sister Morphine.” As for their later, lesser works, “Blinded by Rainbows” on Voodoo Lounge and “Saint of Me” on Bridges to Babylon are both bleeding with spellbinding thought and complexity. Why is saying I want to hold your hand 12 times in one song musical genius?
The problem with this debate is that non-Stones fans may only look at their immortal hits like “Sympathy for the Devil” “Brown Sugar” and “Jumping Jack Flash” which, although are great tracks, they are just the surface of the intricate universe that is the Rolling Stones. Even the string of albums starting with Beggar’s Banquet and ending with Exile on Main Street isn’t all there is to the greatest rock and roll band in the world.
Now, I was born in the late ‘90’s so I obviously wasn’t around to witness the influence these bands had on the public. It is a known fact that the Beatles were more popular and sold more records but that was because they released songs that made the public feel happy. It was music they wanted to hear. The Stones released music with truth behind every word.
And as for who had the better live performances, it was the Stones. However, it is an unfair argument since the Beatles couldn’t even be heard. But may I remind everyone that girls were attacking the Stones on the stage and they kept performing.
I have a lot of respect for the Beatles. But I’ve noticed they their status as greatest artists of all time is based off of (obviously) popularity. In another land where this honor was based off of the constant quality of music despite lack of recognition, the Stones would win out.

Nov. 17 2013 12:55 PM

Score: 0/0

Fernando

Love the Beatles…..but have lived without them for many years…..Live without the Stones?…..to scary to coneven consider……..just at long as the guitar plays, he’ll steal your heart away. If you ask why? listen to greatest song of all time Jumpin Jack Flash it still bursts forth like an unchained leviathan. Beatles are great no doubt but too much sweets gives cavities. Musically they created cavities that needed to be filled by music that stirs the crotch. Head music is so boring…don’t you want to dance with me? and let me remind you Jagger is a Stone …so no contest. Keith we love you man!!!!!!

Aug. 22 2013 01:41 PM

Score: 0/0

Doug from florida

I love both bands, I am simply trying to find out who had more songs in the billboard top 40 in order to settle a bet.

Aug. 01 2013 03:23 AM

Score: 0/0

Scarlett

Um hello they were friends. Stop slamming the band you didn’t choose. If you like one more than the other just say it and leave. Like this, the Rolling Stones has been and always will be my favorite band. Bye guys

Jul. 31 2013 10:33 AM

Score: 0/0

Mike P from Atlantic City, NJ

With all due respect to stones fans its really not close. The Beatles were the best band in the history of music. Not best rock or pop or punk band. But best band ever. They did not belong to one genre because they not only transcended all music genres but created all the ones we’ve come to love along the way. These guys were musical geniuses with heart and soul. Each record that was released was not only completely different than the last but better. Lol. Its insane. Even when they were ready to break up they go out with Abbey road. Who does that. Its almost laughable. AND ALL IN 6 1/2 YEARS. These guys did all of this by ear. All that magic. No reading music. You couldn’t write it anymore unbelievable. And 3 were great solo artists. Brilliant in some cases. Try picking s favorite song. Bet it change throughout the week. That my friends is The Beatles, the best.

Now for all the Stones strengths you can counter them. Great live band. Check out the beatles impromptu performance on the roof in the wind outside. Sounds like the studio. And Paul is still an amazing live performer. So the beatles would have easily been as good. They were great musicians and had great ears. And alot of practice due to they’re club years when younger in Hamburg. Which leads me to another strength of the stones. Sex appeal.

The Beatles played in those rough clubs for a long long time before becoming famous. Those clubs practically had sex in the air. So don’t give me that sex, dealing with the other sex in songs crap. The Stones were busy living a middle class life when the Beatles were in front of hookers.

And last without the Beatles there would be no Stones. The Beatles could have have wrote and played what the stones did. No way in hell could the Stones write those beatles songs. Lyrics and alot of times musical composure. And if you want to get all technical look at the chart success and records they hold. Personally I don’t think that means anything but they happen to hold that by a wide margin too.

The stones were great in there own right. Its not there fault either, The Beatles were, and always will be, next level.

Apr. 19 2013 11:55 PM

Score: 0/0

Alex from Austin

The Beatles produced a number of monumental records, but only for 8 years. Yes the Stones dropped off massively after ’73 but in that 8 year period they pumped out “Out of our Heads” “Aftermath” “Beggars Banquent” “Let it Bleed” “Sticky Fingers” “Exile on Main St.” and “Goats Head Soup”. I find it impossible to come up with any better list of albums than that. Add in that the Stones are STILL together to this day, STILL performing is absolutely incredible. No group of their successfulness has ever stuck together like that. Also the Stones were FAR better musicians, hence why the Beatles rarely played live and quit touring so early. The Stones are far better performers, clearly. And lastly, it is absurd to say that the Beatles had more intricate music. Listen to Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St. and tell me the Fab Four ever produced the Horns work of Bobby Keys and company or the Piano work of Nicky Hopkins and Billy Preston

Both great bands. Beatles had a sound that appealed to everyone because it was catchy and poppy, while the Rolling Stones had a sound that appealed to an audience with a more sophisticated taste, because it was more rock ‘n’ roll and more badass.

Dec. 27 2012 01:05 PM

Score: 0/0

Will from Tennesse

It’s the proverbial chicken and egg deal. Simply put, no chicken, no egg. The same logic is applicable: no Beatles no Stones, no Elvis no Beatles, no Sinatra no Elvis. Music and history changed with McCartney and Lennon. The Stones are just a bit better version of Eric B. and The Animals. Good music, but not history changers.

Dec. 21 2012 11:18 PM

Score: 0/0

matthew gates from Los Angeles California

Look here it is the Beatles are the best band of all time it’s not a comparison to the Stones. Don’t get me wrong the Stones are great but they’re not the Beatles. The Beatles have so many classic songs they were musical genuises

Dec. 11 2012 10:06 PM

Score: 0/0

Kevin from Nigger,Nigger

I like the Rolling Stones believe me I do but the Beatles are the best band in the world lets face it . I mean its really difficult to decide what your favorite song is and the Beatles changed their sound. Listen to Please Please Me and then Sgt. Peppers Lonley Hearts club band an you’ll see the difference. Also the rling stones lyrics are too simple. Could they write a song like I Am the Walrus? I think not!

Oct. 28 2012 01:51 AM

Score: 0/0

jojo from australia

The question of the beatles vs the rolling stones hinges on which approach and aesthetic one prefers.The beatles music was poppy,bright,cheerful melodic.The stones music was darker,raw,and cynical.The stones music sometimes flirts with nihilism and misogyny.The beatles music is generally idealistic.The beatles sold many more records.

Oct. 14 2012 08:22 AM

Score: 0/0

Fausto Martinez from Utica

I like both bands. I really do. But if I had to choose between one or the other, I’d choose The Rolling Stones. Reason being is because they have at least one song for every mood that I experience in a daily/weekly basis.

Oct. 07 2012 08:46 PM

Score: 0/0

mark weisshaus from brooklyn

i think everybody’s missing the main point, namely that the beatles are the voice and sound of the sixties. The stones are rock. the beatles are psychedelic. There’s a magic in their sound which nobody has ever been able to duplicate. The bottom line in my book is that when you listen to the beatles you get all sorts of fantastic visual images. they take you to another place and time-another dimension.

Nobody else comes close to duplicating that, including the stones.

The stones are rock. the beatles are magic. take your pick.

Apr. 26 2012 10:15 PM

Score: 0/0

mike

rolling stones.

Apr. 04 2012 01:11 PM

Score: 0/0

Cristain from la puente

to me both bands are great, but musically the Stones are better because they had Brian Jones and he’s able to play any instrument and he was able to change the style of the band and they had Keith Richards with his tasty licks, but songwriting and singing it was the Beatles, they also sowed the seeds of future sub genres of rock and pop(psychedelic on love you to and within you and with out you, hard rock and heavy metal on helter skelter and yer blues, and acoustic ballads on Michelle and yesterday) but if i had to choose between bands i say the Beatles.The Stones were better than the Beatles when they had Brian Jones and after he died their mid 70s, mid 80 and after albums started to fall out of success.

Jan. 23 2012 11:49 PM

Score: 0/0

heavyrules from Lebanon

The beatles are better however Pink Floyd are a hundred times better than The Beatles and Rolling Stones put together. (Rolling Stones are Silly).

Jan. 05 2012 07:18 AM

Score: 0/0

andrew

So,only I can say i that The Rolling Stones i the best Rock band ever.

Nov. 26 2011 01:42 PM

Score: 0/0

scott

Man If John and George would still be with us I it would be great to hear the Beatles performing today. Has anyone ever heard Mick Jagger really play a guitar or piano really well? Yeal he blows the harmonica and thats all I ever seen. I think John,George, and Paul are all better guitar players than Keith Richards. How come the best guitar playing always came from Jones and then Taylor and then Ron Wood. I would like to hear Richards do the guitar work on Abbey Road lp. Folks it wouldn’t have made the album better. I don’t buy for a second that the Stones were better musicians than the Beatles.

Sep. 01 2011 09:49 AM

Score: 0/0

Max

It’s nothing more than a question of musical taste! Sure, rubber Soul, revolver, Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road and the white album are undeniable masterpieces. But you know what? So are Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exile On Main Street, Out of Our Heads, Sticky Fingers and December’s Children!

The Stones were certainly more influential. They were a huge influence on later great rock bands like Aerosmith, Guns N Roses, AC/DC and many others. They also successfully captured the spirit of rock and roll, which the Beatles completely failed to do.

Aug. 31 2011 10:20 PM

Score: 0/0

Will

If someone can find me another band with anything akin to beatlemania then I will concede that The Beatles are not the greatest band of all time.
Although The Stones are a close second.

Jul. 20 2011 05:39 PM

Score: 0/0

Beatman from Millford

I loke a lot of the songs by the rolling stones like satisfaction, brown sugar, and angie, but i just can’t choose the rolling stones over The Beatles. It’s just their music and their style of everything they do and have ever done is just amazing. I love The Beatles

Jul. 18 2011 10:25 PM

Score: 0/0

Aloisio

Beatles = pop-rock band
Rolling Stones = rock-blues-country band

It all depends on what style you like the most.
But, since in live concerts Stones was (and are) by far better than Beatles, i’ll go with the greatest rock ‘n roll band in the world.

Mar. 19 2011 06:50 AM

Score: 0/0

Bob from New Milford

Beatles fans often will point out the chord structure of their songs were complex while that of the Stones were basically simple. This is used as an argument for saying the Beatles were superior to the Stones. But there are other considerations when comparing the two groups. I would start with that the Beatles had no one within a galaxy of Brian Jones as a musician. In a recent bio of John Lennon the author (Spitz or Norman, I can’t remember) said Jones “was an instinctive musical genius who had command of a wide array of instruments.” He said George Harrison’s playing of the sitar was ploddy and cumbersome compared to Jones use of the same and that Lennon was in awe of Jones musical talent in those early days. I have read although I have not verified myself that while the Beatles were innovative in their use of instruments they did not play most of them. Not so with the Stones as Jones was able to handle almost any instrument. Many years ago I read Jones could master an instrument within a week. Further, until the late 70′s I had read several times that Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman comprised rock’s greatest rhythm section. And for Beatles fans to say Ringo Starr is a better drummer than Watts is pure fantasy. Starr was a basic drummer who did not contribute much to the Beatles greatness. Watts, not only in his relation to Wyman’s playing, also was integral to the Stones due to his jazz background. Just listen to Sticky Fingers to get an idea of Watts greatness. Finally, as everyone on Soundcheck agreed on, the Stones had it on the Beatles in terms of guitar work, especially when one considers the work of Mick Taylor. It seems clear the Stones were better instrumentally than the Beatles. When one listens to Backstreet Girl off of Flowers the interplay of the accordian, percussion, and acoustic guitar produces a beautiful song the likes of which the Stones rarely recieve credit for.

Jan. 17 2011 06:22 PM

Score: 0/0

Ann from Brooklyn

Beatles= 1 billion
Stones= 200 million

The Rolling Stone Best Album: Sgt. Pepper- #1

Exile on Main Street- #7

Top Ten: Beatles- 4
Stones- 1
What are you gonna do Mick? You can’t do anything! Beatles are the best.

Jan. 05 2011 04:38 PM

Score: 0/0

Dr Boogie from NOLA

Helter Skelter;
Gimme Shelter!

Dec. 18 2010 12:56 PM

Score: 0/0

Bob from New Milford from New Milford

Unquestionably the Beatles were very lucky to have come along when they did. When John F Kennedy was murdered a gaping hole was torn in the psyche of the American public. Further the unquestioning innocence Americans had for their govt was greatly shaken when soon after the assassination it became highly likely a conspiracy had been at work. Within a year along come the Beatles with their mop top haircuts, their jackets and ties, their cuddly demeanor and their innocent songs. The timing couldn’t have been more perfect. Plus Lennon and McCartney had been playing together for some years so they’re song writing skills were polished. The American public needed badly the innocence of the Beatles and when the hits started coming the result was a tidal wave of popularity and media coverage. They were the new Elvis. This initial surge of popularity probably explains why the Beatles could have six of the top ten selling singles at one point, something they never came close to again to my knowledge. Unlike the Rolling Stones the Beatles never did anything to alienate the public or even portions of the public. This perfect fit of the Beatles with America created advantages for the Beatles which they enjoy to this day, one of which is the preferential treatment they receive in rock station air play of their songs (and with light music stations as well). There are a number of great rolling Stones songs which demonstrate their ability to make varied songs that never receive radido air play. I do not think Beatles fans are aware of this when they evaluate the Stones material. All of this is not to say the Beatles weren’t immensely talented, they were of course but they benefited enormously from the timing of their arrival and their willingness to put forth an image that the American public badly needed to have.

Dec. 12 2010 09:07 PM

Score: 0/0

Beatles#Fan! (anabel) from Pueblo, Colorado

all of you guys are argueing over nothing. The beatles for one had 27 number one hits during 1964-1969. the rolling stones had 13 number one hits between the U.K and the U.S record charts. and if you havent heard the news there is a beatles rockband out there and i dont see a Rolling stones rockband coming out anytime soon unless they pull out another 13 #1 hits out of theie butts. i like one rolling stone stone fan, but since i am only thirteen and live in a pathetic town of pueblo i cant really settle this problem. people always say that if you love the beatles you are most likely not going to like the rolling stones as much. vice-versa.

Dec. 06 2010 12:13 AM

Score: 0/0

big gay al

beatles will never be topped. the rolling stones are good but not even in the top 10.

Nov. 20 2010 06:09 PM

Score: 0/0

Ricardo from Trinidad

I never heard much of the Stones’ sound, but after hearing the Beatles my mind was made up. The Beatles are the greatest. The Who, Kinks, Stones they all sound generic and overdone; the Fab Four evolved, they grew and the innovated. You can’t call the Beatles’ music dated when you can still release an album with all your classic songs and it goes straight to number 1. Comparing the Beatles with the Stones, or any other band for that matter, is like comparing Michael Jackson to Usher Raymond: a downright insult!

Oct. 28 2010 10:54 AM

Score: 0/0

Bob from New Milford, New Jersey

Some Beatles fans have a kind of smugness and are misinformed regarding the Rolling Stones. Its as if they are not really familiar with all of the material of the Stones. These fans often characterize the Stones as one dimensional not realizing the Stones crossed a broad spectrum ranging from Gimme Shelter to Angie. They could produce great songs in various genres including hard rock (Brown Sugar), ballads (As Tears Go By), psychedelia (2000 Light Years From Home), country (Wild Horses), orchestral (She’s A Rainbow), jazz (Melody), and disco (Miss You). Satisfaction is often regarded as the best rock song ever by many commentators (including, I believe, Art Garfunkel but Tom Petty said Jumpin Jack Flash was the best three minutes of rock music ever). The idea that the Beatles are a phenom and that without them the Stones would have been a small success doesn’t hold water in light of the innumerable great songs the Stones produced.. If the Stones had come along first in 1963 and were willing to play the game of mop top haircuts and a cuddly image they may very well have had the smashing impact the Beatles had. MSNBC has a web site where the author ranks the top ten bands of all time. He says the Beatles are first, being the best and the most important. The Stones are second but he says by 1970 even had the Beatles not broken up the Stones were challenging them for greatest band in the world, a position they strengthened in 1972 with the release of the great Exile on Main Street. One thing which is very important to respect the Beatles for and this is that John Lennon stood for peace, George Harrison was a spiritual man, and Paul McCartney stands for animal rights. The Rolling Stones have no spiritual or social justice inclinations. If there is one group to challenge either it is not The Who, or Led Zeppelin. I would offer U2 who have now put out thirteen albums of fresh material, are very diversified, have innumerable great songs (many of which never receive radio air play) and evoke depth of feeling the Beatles or Stones could never come close to. When it comes to social justice and spiritual themes their songs contain a depth of meaning the Beatles could not come close to and the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Who have little or none of. There are many things I would like to say that space does not allow here but in the end I would say the Beatles were the better of the two because they were somewhat more prolific and highly original. But the Stones should be considered as worthy challengers as they were easily superior to the Beatles in hard rock and were a much better live act.

Sep. 05 2010 02:19 AM

Score: 0/0

Bill A. from NY

this is a joke, i like the Beatles But, after Satanic Majestes, The Stones made 4 of the greatest rock lps ever, mixing rock, blues r n b and country. and to the guy who said Goats Head Soup was no good, listen to the tracks my friend, Mick Taylor was untouchable.

Sep. 04 2010 10:29 AM

Score: 0/0

Randy from United States

The Rolling Stones are far more talented than the Beatles. In addition the Stones didn’t jump ship on their fans.

Sep. 03 2010 02:45 PM

Score: 1/1

Jake from California

“The Beatles weren’t very good at doing sex,” writes someone here. This is so dumb it’s actually interesting. “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road.” “Come Together” with its sex noises. “Lovely Rita” with its shocking cross-gender images (very shocking for 1967, pretty shocking now). “Please Please Me” which is sheer unadulterated sex in the back of a Liverpool cinema. “I Want You.” Etc., etc. Also, John was not one of the bullied boys in the back of the class. He was the class leader in every class he was ever in, cool, aloof, spectacular looking in his day.

Sep. 02 2010 12:36 PM

Score: -1/1

Jake from California

Three comments:

1. The remarks by Rich From Australia about the Beatles are the stupidest critique I’ve ever read, and I’ve read a lot of ‘em.

2. As any number of people have pointed out over the years, the Beatles cracked open the global market for British bands singlehandedly, making it possible for the Stones to take the left-wing, we’re-the-nasty-guys approach. Without the Beatles, Mick Jagger today is a semi-succesful theatrical impresario in the West End, and Keith Richards is on the dole in a sleazy hotel in Manchester.

3. Why do I need to choose? I love ‘em both. I thank God that I was 10 years old in 1965, young enough for both bands to hit me right between the eyes, with fresh music from both of ‘em coming out every month, free of charge on the radio, saturating the whole world. That fact has made all the difference in my life.

Sep. 02 2010 11:40 AM

Score: 0/0

Ammar from Pakistan

The Beatles without any doubt with 1 billion sales and rolling stones with 200 million way behind Beatles r biggest musical act ever after Elvis and before MJ!

Sep. 02 2010 04:08 AM

Score: 0/0

urchin

(Rich from Australia): Beatles can’t write Gimme Shelter, etc.. ??? Give me a break. Who wants to anyways. Have you listened to the structure and melodies of some of these song (eg: You can’t always get what you want). Repetitive and boring. Same tune over and over from beginning to end. Listen and analyse some of the other Stones song you listed. Simple melody repeated verse after verse. Nothing complicated. Lennon/McCartney would consider these songs throw-aways.

Now tell me which Stones song compares to masterpieces such as Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields, Day in a Life, In My Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Eleanor Rigby, While my Guitar Gently Weep, etc..etc..and tons of others. Can’t right? Now you know why many musicians and critics regard Lennon/McCartney as the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.

Sep. 02 2010 02:01 AM

Score: -1/1

Ed Seward from Detroit, MI

Studio Band: Beatles
Live Band: Stones
Rock ‘n Roll spirit overall: Stones #1.

Sep. 01 2010 04:46 PM

Score: 1/1

Abhishek Kumar from Lucknow,India

The time when beatles disbanded the stones were nothing comparable to beatles , the beatles made their legacy in just some what 8 years and the stones did in 40 years …….
and talking about present beatles were the second best selling artist of decade of 2000′s
after the 40 years of seperation of band …
so who is the best no unquestionably THE BEATLES……for ever..
but STONES have the second position secured for ever

Sep. 01 2010 07:45 AM

Score: -1/1

URCHIN

Stupid comparison. Stones retread the same style and tunes over and over again. Melody uninteresting and repetitive.
Beatles = unmatch in melodies, tune, variety, innovation. Beatles win – no contest.

Sep. 01 2010 02:18 AM

Score: -1/1

Bigger Bang from San Fransisco, USA

The Rolling Stones are the Greatest Rock Band in the world for a number of reasons: The Stones have dozens of top 40 hit songs- a record number of consecutive # 1 albums- best selling rock DVD ever (Four Flicks sold x 10 platinum) The Stones are the most enduring band- They have have garnered more publicity than any other rock band, and the Rolling Stones are the most successful touring band of all-time (A Bigger Bang alone made $550,000,000,). Critics tend to over-look that incredible feat!
I consider the Beatles to be a great pop group. Yes, The Beatles sold tons of records too, but the Stones music is still current. The Beatles music is somewhat dated.

Aug. 31 2010 11:41 PM

Score: 1/1

Rich from Australia

Rolling Stones are the greatest band in the history of music.

Daylight second.

Beatles couldn’t write Gimme Shelter, You cant Always Get What You Want, Moonlight Mile, Midnight Rambler, Sympathy For The Devil, Wild Horses, Under My Thumb, Jumpin Jack Flash, Undercover, Saint Of Me, Miss You, Rough Justice & 100+ other Stones masterpieces to save their lives.

Beatles did have that wonderful popular bubblegum pop hands down though. A good 60′s band. Gotta love those mummys matching clothes & hairdo’s.

Stones still unmatched & unsurpassed to this day & will continue to be.

Aug. 31 2010 11:19 PM

Score: 1/1

Stephen from Queens NY

I can remember back in mid 60’s growing up in East NY we were glued to the TV with my extended family brothers, sisters and friends watching the Clay Cole Show & Ed Sullivan Show. I think since the Stones acted and sound black while the Beatles acted and sound so vanilla we all wanted to more Stones and less Beatle mania. I felt back then (60-70s) the man was forcing the Beatle on me, while the Stones just grew on me naturally.

Aug. 31 2010 11:00 PM

Score: 1/1

Brian W from White Plains, N Y

I like/enjoy both The Beatles & Stones
but I found that the narative didn’t hit the mark. Was “Why Don’t We Do It In The Road” Not Sexy (like Mike) or was “Beast Of Burden” not “intellecticual enough ??
But further more the Greatest Perfoming Band EVER wasn’t the Who (I saw @ Filmore East 1970 !!) but was The Grateful
Dead. Sayz I

Aug. 31 2010 09:49 PM

Score: 0/0

TZVI from Taos

Beatles Beachboys is better comp stones can’t sing

Aug. 31 2010 09:10 PM

Score: -1/1

Chavisa Woods from Brooklyn

Is this even really a question? Do people argue about this? I mean, it’s obviously the Beatles, right? There’s no argument.

Aug. 31 2010 07:21 PM

Score: -1/1

charles from Lethe

Well, the playlist anyway is seriously slanted towards the Beatles, not only in number of songs per band but in quality of Stones tunes. Any playlist of the Stones that leaves out Honky Tonk Women, Wild Horses, Ruby Tuesday and Tumbling Dice is not worthy of its subject.

Aug. 31 2010 06:44 PM

Score: 1/1

birdarise from Long Island

This is purely a Western concept, choosing the absolute “best” of anything. Eastern philosophies allowed a “both/and” perspective rather than our “either/or.” AND there it is… the Beatles opened minds to other philosophies. While some Beatle fans prefer “A Hard Day’s Night” and the early rock’n'roll, others like the “folkie” stuff like the US version of Rubber Soul, “Yesterday,” etc. But as a “Revolver” fan, I appreciate ALL the Beatles’ styles and genres. The Stones attempted this variety but in the end retreated to guitar rock. Damn good, but more limited in scope and ultimately repetiitve.

Aug. 31 2010 05:07 PM

Score: 0/0

Simon from NYC

I don’t know one person who only likes one of the two bands.

Aug. 31 2010 03:52 PM

Score: 2/2

Sonny Crockett from Miami, Fla.

The Beatles were by far the better band. And for all his “jazz inspired, to cool for the room” BS, Ringo Starr is a better drummer that Charlie Watts. The Stones are a GREAT band, no doubt; but the Beatles changed music and media in general. Also, you always got the impression that the Beatles could do Stones type music anytime they chose, but the Stones failed miserably when trying to emulate the Beatles, such as the mess that was Satanic Majesty. The Stones were a real good garage grunge band, pure grindhouse rock n roll. The Beatles music changed from album to album in 6 1/2 all to short years. They were simply brilliant and 300 years from now, people will still be listening and speaking about how great the Beatles were. Lastly, to the Led Zep fan ( I love Led Zep!), let me quote Robert Plant:
“We reached their greatness once, in my opinion. Stairway To Heaven is as good as any record ever made. But the Beatles were able to do it on a regular basis.”

Sonny Crockett

Aug. 31 2010 02:51 PM

Score: -1/1

MickShagger

“The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones”?

That is the sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

Aug. 31 2010 02:50 PM

Score: -1/1

Sonny Crockett from Miami, Fla.

Sonny Crockett

Aug. 31 2010 02:46 PM

Score: -1/1

Sean from Brooklyn, ny

The Beatles were simply rock for the masses. ABC rock. Soft rock. Their cords were very basic. Although they used much layering in the studio they still were not really edgy other than being the first big part of the British age of Rock n Roll.

The Stones on the other hand really changed it up and brought segregated radio in to a tizzy by producing black inspired music that sometimes sounded black. They were the edge in those days.

Remember, white stations would not really play Stones music till almost the 70′s when radio was relaxing their play list because of the disco error. Besides the Beatles did not play well on black radio because to black folk any covers that they did reminded black folk of all of those stolen songs sung by white artist that black artist were not credited for (Ricky Nelson, Elvis Presley)

Aug. 31 2010 02:40 PM

Score: 1/1

vvv from nyc

Oh great let’s listen to a bunch of old time crap now

Aug. 31 2010 02:40 PM

Score: -1/1

WS from nyc

SCHAEFER VS. LIANNE FROM NPR

Aug. 31 2010 02:39 PM

Score: 0/0

tommyg from ny

The Beatles were the leaders but when Keith started writing in open G tuning the Stones hit their stride and were interesting and great all through the eighties.

Aug. 31 2010 02:39 PM

Score: 0/0

BURNS from nyc

MONKEYS VS. PARTRIDGES

Aug. 31 2010 02:39 PM

Score: 1/1

Dee

You can’t say that the Stones were a better live band. The Beatles quit touring before the technology emerged that would have enabled them to perform live without the stupid screaming. … But Paul McCartney is an amazing performer live, as anyone who has been to one of his recent shows can attest. So I think a case can be made that the Beatles live would have been terrific and compelling, had the technology existed to allow people to hear them. They wouldn’t have pranced around like Mick, but then he looks ridiculous now prancing around at his age.

Aug. 31 2010 02:38 PM

Score: 0/0

MickShagger

“The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones”?

That is the sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

Aug. 31 2010 02:37 PM

Score: -1/1

Robots Need to Party from NYC

This seems a worthy smackdown if the number posts is any indicator.

I don’t get the Stones. Maybe I’m not deep enough. The way I see it one is pop, the Beatles and the other is something else maybe something more gritty and authentic.

Aug. 31 2010 02:36 PM

Score: 1/1

SFLJ from nyc

STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID

Aug. 31 2010 02:36 PM

Score: 0/0

lo from nyc

let it be is not the last album

Aug. 31 2010 02:36 PM

Score: 0/0

blossom from Strawberry Fields

“Which was the better band?”
SInce you didn’t say “rock band”, no question, The Beatles.

And if you go more narrow to rock band, and open it up to more bands, it’s The Who over The Stones.

Aug. 31 2010 02:35 PM

Score: -1/1

dy from nyc

most of the stones guitar tracks are by unknown studio musicians

Aug. 31 2010 02:35 PM

Score: -1/1

b uddy from nyc

go ahead play some more crappy trax that prove nothing

Aug. 31 2010 02:34 PM

Score: 0/0

Sandra from Astoria

Beatles-schmeatles, I LOVE THE STONES!

I don’t care if the Beatles were more musically “innovative;” whenever I listen to the Stones I feel ALIVE.

Yes, “Satanic Majesties” is derivative but they followed it with “Beggars Banquet,” “Let it Bleed,” “Sticky Fingers,” and “Exile on Mainstreet.” Those surpass any Beatles record for me, and I think “Exile” is the best rock record of all time.

Last weekend my Beatles-fan friend and I had this very debate–we alternated songs, he playing one Beatles song and I countering with a Stones song. I think I won because with the exception of the “Hey Jude” singalong, the Stones were more FUN.

And it might be all about sex, because I think Mick’s mouth is still the sexiest thing ever.

Plus Beatles fans are insufferable.

Aug. 31 2010 02:34 PM

Score: 1/1

Mark A from NJ

It is no contest. Both bands made great songs but the Beatles changed music.
Listen to a Stones song from 30 years ago and one of their new songs. Sounds like the same group.
Listen to “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” and then any song from their last years. They changed, evolved and weren’t afraid to try something new.
The Stones found a sound that sold and they stuck with it.
Beatles were, like all great artists, innovators.

Aug. 31 2010 02:33 PM

Score: -1/1

JJ from nyc

Yes but the stones can still use the bathroom.. Not the beatles. No John

Aug. 31 2010 02:32 PM

Score: 1/1

SD from bklyn

there was a billion people at that recording session…

Aug. 31 2010 02:31 PM

Score: 0/0

Gary Shaffer from Brooklyn

Most people here have it right. The Stones were a great band, but they were not the Beatles. They didn’t change the direction of music with almost every album they made as did the Beatles. If you’re not sure the Beatles were a great rock band, go to a Fab Faux concert some time. And as for saving black music for the rest of us, last time I looked, Gordie Berry, Little Richard, Marvin Gay, BB King, Aretha, Patti La Belle, Otis Redding, etc, etc, etc, etc, saved black music for all of us good Caucasian folk. Puhlease.

Aug. 31 2010 02:31 PM

Score: 0/0

Nonee from bklyn

Your side by side track playing has been stupid so far: I wna be yr man is not of the great songs neither was the last you played…. cmon think a little more.

Aug. 31 2010 02:30 PM

Score: 0/0

Gary Shaffer from Brooklyn

Aug. 31 2010 02:29 PM

Score: 0/0

danielle from upper west side

When the Beatles first were played on the radio I hated them – i thought their songs were infantile and those suits and too neat hair cuts were awful plus all the girls I knew were acting like idiots whenever their songs came on the radio. For me at that time it was the Stones because I saw them and myself as rebels plus parents did not approve of them while even my grandmother liked the Beatles! When I saw the Stones perform on TV Mick had scraggely long hair and a sweatshirt on and believes me no one wore sweathirts as regular attire back then. Of course eventually I fell for the Beatles and I could never choose between them because to me their music is totally different.

Aug. 31 2010 02:29 PM

Score: 0/0

Garry Rindfuss

Apples and oranges, folks; both are uniquely great. Perhaps one could argue that The Beatles had more sociological impact, (in part because we in the US were made aware of them first) but that’s about it.

Aug. 31 2010 02:28 PM

Score: 0/0

Larry

to say the beatles never wanted to sound black is beyond inane. mccartney does his little richard on countless recordings.

Aug. 31 2010 02:27 PM

Score: 0/0

Angelina

Does this guy realize that Mick’s attempts to “sound black” would not necessarily be taken as a positive? How many white rappers are taken seriously in the black community? I can only think of one – the obvious one.

Aug. 31 2010 02:27 PM

Score: 0/0

Arjun from Brooklyn

This whole argument is way off-base. The better band is obviously Led Zeppelin.

Aug. 31 2010 02:25 PM

Score: 1/1

Rich K from UCNJ

Two words – Hey Bulldog.

Aug. 31 2010 02:21 PM

Score: 1/1

Lindsey Horner from NYC

As Keith Richards has said more than once while giving the Beatles full props for their great songwriting, the Stones were and are a far better live band. Even as they enter senior citizenship, they blow away bands a third their age for pure rock and roll audacity.

Aug. 31 2010 02:21 PM

Score: 2/2

MickShagger

“The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones”?

That is the sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

Aug. 31 2010 02:19 PM

Score: -1/1

Bob

The Stones always responded to the innovations the Beatles created. The Stones were great counterpunchers, but the Beatles were the leading the way.

Aug. 31 2010 02:18 PM

Score: 0/0

Vinny from Manalapan, NJ

Just a note, Eric Clapton played part of the lead on George Harrison’s “While My Guitar Gently Weeps”

Beatles, no contest. Range, Melodies, they Rock, they do Ballads they do it all. All members of the band are songwriters on their own.

Aug. 31 2010 02:18 PM

Score: 0/0

Jayr from Queens

Apples and oranges: The Beatles wrote GREAT/classic pop music, with incredible innovation, that became increasingly more personal and socially relevant. The Stones, in my mind, epitomize rock n’ roll. Their music in the 60′s and 70′s hold the essence of what is rock n’ roll.

Aug. 31 2010 02:18 PM

Score: 0/0

kira from Clinton Hill

I love them both ALOT, totally equal. beatles are brain, stones libido.

Aug. 31 2010 02:17 PM

Score: 1/1

boogmusic from midtown

Beatles vs. Stones is like cats vs. dogs, and I know a lot of people that love both cats and dogs. I’d rather hear a round robin smackdown pitting the solo Beatles against each other.

Aug. 31 2010 02:17 PM

Score: 0/0

Judith from Brooklyn

Beatles – absolutely!

Aug. 31 2010 02:15 PM

Score: 0/0

Hockmeeshynick from Ny, NY

This track proves The s\tones were better

Aug. 31 2010 02:15 PM

Score: 0/0

Ken from Little Neck

The Stones, while talented, were one note rockers. The Beatles were artists who changed not only music history, but the whole world. I don’t see how you can make any other argument.

Aug. 31 2010 02:14 PM

Score: -1/1

Harley

STOP.
For the sake of all things living, please stop this silly comparison.

Why can’t people acknowledge that both of these bands made music. Some of which you may like, and some you might not like.
So be it.

Aug. 31 2010 02:14 PM

Score: 0/0

MickShagger from Here

“The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones”?

That is sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

Aug. 31 2010 02:13 PM

Score: -1/1

ted in atlanta from an octopus’s garden

Beatles: Slicker, sweeter, smarter, more creative and just killer songs. Both insanely talented though.

Aug. 31 2010 02:13 PM

Score: 0/0

Hockmeeshynick from Ny, NY

the start of strwb fields is a mellotron not a guitar

Aug. 31 2010 02:13 PM

Score: 0/0

richardlewis

Must read this in regards to Beatles v Stones.http://www.bbgun.org/text/beatles.htm

Aug. 31 2010 02:09 PM

Score: 0/0

Dave

Record sales aren’t everything, of course. And I agree with people who say that your mood determines which band you want to listen to. But I still have to marvel at the Beatles’ amazing chart success. Consider just this one statistic: On April 11, 1964, the Beatles had 14 songs inside the Billboard Hot 100 at the same time. FOURTEEN! No one is ever going to match that again.

Aug. 31 2010 02:09 PM

Score: 0/0

Angelina from Manhattan

Are you even serious? The Beatles. The Rolling Stones rock out but they do not have the depth, the impact, the enduring legacy, the political engagement, or the complexity of The Beatles, as a band + as 4 individuals. Long live The Beatles!

And a special hug to John, my hero.

Aug. 31 2010 02:09 PM

Score: 0/0

Anon

are 12 year olds responsible for soundcheck’s programming?

Aug. 31 2010 02:09 PM

Score: 0/0

Jayr from Queens

Aug. 31 2010 02:09 PM

Score: 0/0

Eric K from Brooklyn

Who is better – the Beatles or the Stones? A question answered by simply with the following letters:

R-A-M-O-N-E-S

Aug. 31 2010 02:08 PM

Score: 0/0

Jayr

Apples and oranges: The Beatles wrote GREAT/classic pop music that became increasingly more personal and socially relevant. The Stones, in my mind, epitomize rock n’ roll. Their music in the 60′s and 70′s hold the essence of what is rock n’ roll.

Aug. 31 2010 02:08 PM

Score: 1/1

Hockmeeshynick from Ny, NY

It is indisputable, that the Beatles had the superior songwriting duo, and that the Rolling Stones were merely trying to catch up. The result was hackneyed songwriting, and a whole lot of posing.

Aug. 31 2010 02:07 PM

Score: 0/0

Jeb from Greenpoint

The Kinks.

Aug. 31 2010 02:05 PM

Score: 0/0

Juli from Skillman, NJ

Apples and oranges. They both have their place and we can not live without either. They have different messages that they are conveying and a different way of rendering those messages. There are different genres within the rock designation and these two bands fall within different sub rock genres. Cheers that we have both of them.

Aug. 31 2010 02:05 PM

Score: 0/0

Garry Rindfuss

Aug. 31 2010 02:04 PM

Score: 0/0

Rob from Trumbull, CT

They are too different. Depends on your mood, I think.

Aug. 31 2010 02:02 PM

Score: 0/0

Rob from Trumbull, CT

They are too different. Depends on your mood, I think.

Aug. 31 2010 02:01 PM

Score: 0/0

Frank from Newark from Newark NJ

I always liked the Beatles but the Stones were the real rockers, i can’t live without both. When I want to rock out I put on the Stones. The Beatles are head music.
I also prefer to play there records then the cd’s. Third fav, The Kinks

Aug. 31 2010 01:54 PM

Score: 0/0

PETE from Brooklyn

THE ROLLING STONES ARE FRAUDS! Prep-schoolers who robbed America of its music and made England think they invented the blues. If I wanted to hear another tired song about some old dude’s libido I would just listen to that tired hack Iggy Pop.
This is in contrast to the Beatles who internalized American music and helped to innovate it. Working class heroes in the best way possible!

Aug. 31 2010 01:47 PM

Score: 0/0

Eliz

“Would You Shag John?” In a heartbeat, buddy. Although I’d take Paul first because he seems like he’d care as much about showing you a good time as getting off himself. (Mick just seems like he’s in it for Mick.) The Stones were the kind of band you think are sexy when you’re between 16 and 21 and want a quickie with no strings attached. Might be fun in the moment but you care if it lasts. And you certainly don’t want to date that dude.

The Beatles were the kind of band you want to spend a lifetime having great sex with.

Aug. 31 2010 01:45 PM

Score: 1/1

Antonio Becerril from Mexico City

It all depends on the mood I’m on.

-The Stones are the best to cure the blues, you have Sweet Virginia, Dead Flowers, Let It Loose, Shine A Light. And yes they’re mean and they rock!

- The Beatles are more mellow but I could not live without my White Album, Abbey Road or occasional dose of great Lennon & McCartney tunes.

Aug. 31 2010 01:42 PM

Score: 0/0

Brett from Williamsberg, Brooklyn

The depth, breadth, and creativity of The Beatles’ catalogue easily surpasses that of The Stones. Plus, I’m going to bash my head into a wall if I hear “Start Me Up” one more time.

Aug. 31 2010 01:07 PM

Score: 0/0

andrew slayton from New Yawk

C’mon guys,
This is a silly argument and one that should has absolutely no merit. How could one even think that either of these two bands are and were more innovative than the other? Both bands are genius and cannot or should not be compared. Maybe, the argument should be the Monkees vs either of these two? Not Lennon, McCartney vs,Mick and Keith. And only if someone took the side of the Monkees.
I suppose the only innovative difference I see, is that the Stones made music with less chords with most of their tunes and the Beatle’s music was more orchestral? No wonder Ian stewart referred to them as “the three chord wonders”.Or was it four Bill? I forget
But then you have Rudy Tuesday and She’s a Rainbow. Quite orchestral too.So the entire argument is quite silly. Reminds me of when I was a kid and drummers would debate the merits of Ringo vs Charlie or John Bonham and Ginger Baker because of his Toad solo.
I knew better not to even argue this point when I was 12 years old.

Yes, the Stones had the quintessential front man,one who’s dick you would suck in a heartbeat even though you were straight. The 1969 until 1975, Mick. And a Rock n Roll pirate guitar player that came up with a trademark sound by letting go of the low E string and tuning his guitar to an open G. Which was the most innovative way of utilizing this tuning since the Mexicans turned on the Hawaiian slide players who then in turn influenced the old blues cats. And how a young gun named Mick Taylor complemented these riffs with the most melodic rock n roll guitar playing of all time. If you don’t know it by now, buy the bootleg “The Brussels Affair” 73 is one sure sign that the Stones were the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time..But that’s LIVE and because of the uncredited Mick Taylor. And of course Ya ya’s
So is the debate about live or accomplishments that were made in the studio? I will concede to the argument if we are talking live performance. You can throw the Beatle’s out the or thru the bathroom window. Studio, there is and shall be no argument from this day forward.
No one read music, they played by ear. That is genius, pure and simple.

Aug. 31 2010 01:03 PM

Score: 1/1

Jay

I will be honest, The Stones have never done it for me. I can see where people get into them and I give them a gentlemanly tip of the hat for their talent and staying power. But… I have to go with the Beatles.

Everyone talks about John and Paul and Ringo (if at least as the comedic relief), no one ever mention poor George. He was talented enough to hold his own with the Traveling Wilburys.

Aug. 31 2010 12:52 PM

Score: 0/0

P from L.A.

I think the rivalry made them both better, and I think the songwriting skills of the Stones are underrated. Just see all the album tracks that have become classics several years after the release. My vote is for the Stones

Aug. 31 2010 12:41 PM

Score: 1/1

David Barratt from Oklahoma

From http://www.thebeatlescompleteonukulele.com

ABOUT THE SONG

Stones, Beatles; Beatles, Stones. Back and forth, cut and thrust, lob and volley, the simple stand-and-deliver question “The Beatles or The Stones?” still rattles cages after a half-century of exposition.

Back in November 1963, the near-simultaneous release of versions of Lennon and McCartney’s “I Wanna Be Your Man” by both groups provided a neat snapshot comparison of where they were at and where they were going.

The Stones “may” be better than The Beatles, just as the Dave “may” spend this summer reclining at his exclusive 97-room palace on his own private island in the company of Kate Winslett, Gizelle Bunchen and Vladimir Putin occasionally dive bombing the beaches of the Cote d’Azur in his fur-lined executive gunship and dining every evening on vintage moose-milk cheese and life-sized replicas of himself sculpted entirely from foie gras.

But what can not be denied that is The Stones version of I Wanna Be Your Man IS better than The Beatles version.

There is a very simple reason for this

The Beatles were not very good at doing sex.

They fumbled and apologized their way through inept bra unfastening while The Stones were practically born with beautiful models dripping off of their androgynous but perfectly formed bodies.

Sex is good and nice and very important and The Beatles were rubbish at it.

Would you shag John?

I don’t think so. What we all want to get close to is confidence and the Stones despite their lack to technique in writing, playing and singing, had in spades. Little Johnny was way too paranoid.

Paranoia is simply not sexy.

Now don’t get me wrong, paranoia has it’s uses. It is an excellent tactic for the powerless. The expression of those conspiracy theories, if you shout them loud enough, puts you at the centre of events and attention thereby giving the paranoiac a type of power and status that can be got by no other means.

Lennon and other bullied boys at the back of the class lived for that kind of thing. But would you want to do that pathetic self image?

Of course some of you would, but millions more would shag The Stones. Any of them. Even Charlie.

The Beatles want you to like them, The Stones don’t care (it’s not accidental that we automatically call Ringo by his first name and Jagger by his second).

The Beatles would soon reveal extraordinary melodic flair, surreal humour and boundary-changing sonic inventiveness, but The Stones would always have elemental dirty elegance on their side. So you’ve got two bands. Two food groups. You can of course create a nutritionally balanced menu from both. Or you can binge on either like a deranged animal until you’re sick. All I’m saying is, this is not a health and safety issue, it’s a quality of life issue. And I’m not a doctor.

Aug. 31 2010 12:24 PM

Score: 1/1

Wendy Sacks from Brooklyn and Krumville NY

I’ve loved the Beatles since I was 12 years old in 1964. But I love the Stones as well. I know it’s not very “smack-down” to say it, but can’t I love both?

Aug. 31 2010 12:23 PM

Score: 0/0

Rick C from Long Valley, NJ/USA

ha ha! That’s funny. The Beatles were a phenomenon, The “Stones” were not.
Sounds like a question from someone who “wasn’t there”.

Aug. 31 2010 11:57 AM

Score: 0/0

Lou

Beatles. No contest. What other band produced such a diverse range of music? What other band had multiple lead singers? They made the concept of a band writing and performing its own songs standard for everyone else. They led the way in studio innovation, and in giving artists control over their sound. And their songs today are a part of the culture, globally, to a far far greater degree than the music of any other band.

The Stones have some great songs and they created the sex-and-drugs rock image that so many bands emulated (even though the Beatles in their Hamburg would have put the Stones to shame on that front). But musically, the Stones weren’t great innovators. They just successfully anglicized a tried-and-true blues formula.

Aug. 31 2010 11:04 AM

Score: 0/0

Kelly Duncan from Connecticut

The Beatles are the best. There the ones that change history. If you went to one of thier concerts you could never hear them because of all of thier screaming fans. They had the most top 10 songs, she loves you, love me do, hey Jude, let it be, strawberry flieds, while my guiter gently weeps, and so on. Plus, the Rolling Stones never made any movies about themselves like the Beatles, Hard Dayys night, 8 arms to hold you a.k.a. HELP!

Aug. 31 2010 10:53 AM

Score: 0/0

teal from tarrytown

Beatles and Stones each spoke predominantly to two different ethos of our time: sex and love. The Beatles inspired us to art, poetry, imagination, spirituality, and unity, for me that trumps hard living and sex.

Aug. 31 2010 10:52 AM

Score: 0/0

Ron from NYC

This is like the Yankee’s vs. Met’s rivalry. I”ll go with the Beatles.. The Stones are talented and innovative but the Beatles explored far beyond the outer edges of music and expression and made it work all so well…

Aug. 31 2010 10:40 AM

Score: 0/0

WallyK from New Jersey

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones are both great bands, and my musical favorites include songs from both groups.

But the Beatles produced Sgt. Pepper’s, which is the greatest Rock album ever produced. The Beatles win.

Aug. 31 2010 10:36 AM

Score: 0/0

eric from manhattan

stupid topic

Aug. 31 2010 10:33 AM

Score: -1/1

Debbie Karis from New Hampshire

Stones, hands down. Innovative from the beginning and still continue to rock.

Aug. 31 2010 10:33 AM

Score: 1/1

Siouxie921 from Bronx

As a female music fanatic, it’s as simple as this: the Stones and their music were edgy and sexy, and the Beatles were not.

Future smackdown: Sex Pistols v. Clash?
(Pistols hands down).

Aug. 31 2010 10:17 AM

Score: 0/0

Chef of the Future from Astoria, NY

To me it’s the Beatles and there’s never been a contest. Besides disliking the Stones for their one dimensional personalities, their sound also remained the same largely, not venturing too far from the blues. The Beatles, by contrast experimented and succeeded with many styles and pushed the whole genre forward forever.

Aug. 31 2010 10:07 AM

Score: 0/0

SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side

OMG! Does it matter at this point?? We debated it at the time — and it mattered because both groups were young and making their respective marks on music. Forty plus years later — with the perspective of time — the differences fade and the greatness of each remains. Finally since The Beatles disbanded in 1970 (before actually), are restricting the Smackdown to their 1960s output? Hardly seems fair to compare them after that since The Stones continued to create new work.

Aug. 31 2010 10:03 AM

Score: 0/0

njdriver

When I felt good, I listened to The Beatles, and when I felt bad, I listened to The Stones. Good Boys vs Bad.Boys. When the sun was shining, it was The Beatles. When it rained, it was The Stones. Simple!

Aug. 31 2010 10:01 AM

Score: 0/0

The Beatles left millions of fans hungering for more when they split. As brilliant as the Rolling Stones and the Who both were, they hung around for too long and produced embarrassingly bad albums from 1974 onwards.

Recap

1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. The Who

Aug. 31 2010 09:46 AM

Score: 0/0

Virginia from Putnam Valley, NY

The Beatles brought magic, mysticism & lyricism to a time that was ripe for it and needed it. They will always be connected to that time and that’s a good thing. but as enduring musicians and each of them, masters of their talent, the Stones have it hands down

Aug. 31 2010 09:29 AM

Score: 0/0

Fernando

All respect to the Beatles however the Rolling Stones are and always will be the definitive rock and roll band. As musicians there is no comparison whatsoever. As songwriters the Stones are far more prolific but most importantly the Beatles affected our heads, the Stones affected where it really counts, our crotches!!!!!

Aug. 31 2010 09:11 AM

Score: 0/0

Akshay from Guwahati, Assam

The Beatles never tried any gimmics to win fans, trying best on the other hand to drive away their admirers. No amount of trampling down by rabid critics over past 50 years has even touched the Beatles’ proud moptop heads.
Akshay

Aug. 31 2010 07:37 AM

Score: 0/0

Brian

The practical answer is that the Stones and the other British Invasion bands, whatever their artistic merits, only achieved great success in the US by following in the Beatle’s wake. If there had been no Stones, the Beatles still would have been a huge phenomenon, but if there had been no Beatles, most likely the Stones would have been no more than a local success. And I personally favor the Kinks over either of them…

Aug. 31 2010 07:36 AM

Score: 0/0

Dana

This isn’t about which was a better live band, so mentioning the Who is stupid. The Beatles were driven from live performing by that army of screaming girls, so we can’t judge whether they were a better live band than the stones or the Who. We’ll never know. Can you imagine, today, a band as big as the Beatles actually stopping touring because their fans were getting in the way of the music?

Also, this is a dumb question because the Beatles were obviously more innovative musically, lyrically, all of it. The Stones made some great music, too, but broke little ground.

Finally, John Lennon and Paul McCartney together were magic. Apart, they were both good but together they brought out the best in each other musically and balanced each others’ weaknesses.

Aug. 31 2010 07:14 AM

Score: 0/0

john from office

The greatest band of that era was the WHO, you cannot compare the lyrics and the stage presence of the WHO to any other band. Beatles were over rated and still are. John Lennon was the heart of the band, compare the song simply having a wonderful christmas time to so this is christmas. No talent vs. talent and genius.

But the Who wins hands down.

Aug. 31 2010 06:56 AM

Score: 1/1

Marc from NJ

Go watch The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus (1968) and it’s clear that the Stones and the Beatles were both inferior to The Who.

Aug. 31 2010 06:44 AM

Score: 1/1

Zaid

There is really no comparison! not that the Stones are inferior or anything; but they (and almost every other sound), lack the innovation the Beatles had.

Aug. 31 2010 03:08 AM

Score: 0/0

steve

the beatles hands down they were the most innovative band in history

Aug. 31 2010 01:20 AM

Score: 0/0

Joe from the Lower East Side from NYC

I have to go for The Beatles. Even early on, the Stones were promoted as the “Bad Boys.” At their early stages, The Beatles were playing 7 hour nightly gigs in nefarious venues in Hamburg, while the Stones were enjoying their middle class life style. This apprenticeship shaped their entire career. The Beatles got the Stones signed (& gave them “I Wanna Be Your Man”).
The last great Stones album is from at least 30 years ago, where Paul put out an amazing Fireman record (of which he played all of the instruments) a year ago.
No contest. Beatles rule!

Aug. 30 2010 10:34 PM

Score: 0/0

Oklahoma68

brian the beatles are more fun? what kind of statement is that? and Ringo Starr is a good drummer but charlie watts is better and is not worth pointing out over paul mccartney or John lennon just saying

Aug. 29 2010 10:44 PM

Score: 0/0

Brian Denton from Queens

This is not a serious question. We all know that the obvious, emphatic and undeniable answer is The Beatles. The Beatles are the superior band for the following reasons, among many others:

1) The sold more records.
2) They sell more records today, particularly among individuals born twenty and thirty years after they broke up.
3) They were more innovative. First came Sgt. Pepper’s and then the derivative Their Satanic Majesties Request.
4) The Beatles never produced a poor record. Every song on every album is single-worthy. Every album is different from the one that precedes it and the one that follows it. There is a point with the Rolling Stones, however, where their song writing capabilities declined.
5) The Beatles are more fun.
6) A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, The White Album, The B-Side medley of Abbey Road, Twist and Shout.
7) Ringo Starr

Aug. 28 2010 02:44 PM

Score: -1/1

Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio’s Privacy Policy andTerms Of Use.

Name*

Email address*

Comment*

Location

* Denotes a required field

‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’ (nytimes.com)
Gweek podcast 126 – The Real Fifth Beatle (boingboing.net)
The Rolling Stones – Got Live If You Want It! (1966)(allerlei2013riffmaster.wordpress.com)
‘Beatles vs. Stones’: Which side are you on? (seattletimes.com)
Soul of Rolling Stones, Keith Richards, turns 70 (rawstory.com)

Israel Book Review

Sunday, 23 March 2014

FROST’S EARLY POEMS

The Softening of His Image:The Road Back: Frost’s Letters

‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’ - Time Was on Their Side

Time Was on Their Side ‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’

MONITOR PICTURE LIBRARY VIA GETTY IMAGES

GUESTS:

Related

Comments [140]

Leave a Comment

Sunday, 23 March 2014

FROST’S EARLY POEMS

The Softening of His Image:The Road Back: Frost’s Letters

‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’ - Time Was on Their Side

Time Was on Their Side ‘Beatles vs. Stones’ and ‘Rocks Off’

MONITOR PICTURE LIBRARY VIA GETTY IMAGES

GUESTS:

Related

Comments [140]

Leave a Comment

RELATED ARTICLES