Stones or beatles?

[Glassweb]

So... you're going away to a desert island... for life! Nevermind the crime; you're offered either the entire Beatles catalog or the entire Rolling Stones catalog to take with you for listening pleasure. (no, i don't know where the electricity is gonna come from!)

So... if you had to choose to listen to one of these bands for life who would it be... Stones or Beatles... and why?

[JeffD]

Well, for me personally, I would get dreadfully tired of either one. I can't think of too many things worse than an exclusive diet of Beatles, or Stones. There is so much to the music, of which they are a small, I agree important, but small part.

I know its not what you are after.

Just let me bring my mandolin and let me noodle.

[Bluejay]

Beatles. I love the Stones too (Keef but sometimes it's a bit much. Beatles always make me want to sing and play along.

[yankees1]

Beatles ! Saw them in person in 1966.

[brunello97]

Either-or? That's not really fair. Comping an "A-List" of Beatles or Stones songs might have them going somewhat head to head, but I think the B sides, even the C or D sides from the Beatles yield significantly better material, imho.

"And Your Bird Can Sing." Enough said.

Mick

BTW I've only come on recently to appreciating GH as a guitarist. The guy never wasted a note. Ever. (Not that Richards did either....)

[bruce.b]

Beatles, but I'd rarely play it. I agree with Jeff, I'd much rather bring a mandolin and play that.

[Cheryl Watson]

Beatles: I can't live without listening to great harmony and, if I get to have my mandolin on that desert island too, then I consider their music more conducive to mandolin.

[Glassweb]

Well, as I started this dumb thread I guess I should put in my vote for The Rolling Stones. Why? I don't know...

[brunello97]

Well, as I started this dumb thread I guess I should put in my vote for The Rolling Stones. Why? I don't know...

This might refresh your memory:



Mick

[Mike Scott]

Beatles ! Saw them in person in 1966.

Me too on both counts

[George R. Lane]

Fab Four.

[Jim]

Just shoot me.

[rb3868]

Never been a fan of "best of" lists. I think it's probably more rational to think of tiers of importance (not necessarily popularity) so you would have a top tier of Elvis, Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, Led Zeppelin and the Clash. Probably through Michael Jackson in there as well. What each of them have in common is that they were all the pinnacle of their respective subgenres. then you'd get the next tier that would probably double the size of the first with your Neil Youngs and Smokey Robinsons etc. etc. I couldn't spend all my time on a desert island listening to one band, not even my all-time favorite, without hating it by the time I got rescued. In that respect, I would chooose someone who WASN'T my favorite band

[oneeyeross]

this is a serious question? There can be only one correct answer (from a music point of view) and that would be the Beatles. The Stones were good, for what they were, but as far as musical genius, the Beatles all the way. Harmony, tight guitar work, good lyrics that you could understand make them far better than the Stones. Now, the Stones have had great songs and all, but you can't be the Beatles.

But, I'd rather listen to Dylan, or John Prine, or someone else....(I know, not a choice)...

[Glassweb]

RB... this is a simple question of tastes, nothing intellectual or rational about this... it's just "who would it be"... Beatles or Stones.

[JEStanek]

From my gut, given just those options, I pick the Stones. However, neither would be on my list of top 20 Desert Island bands or acts, for that matter.

Jamie

[Paul Kotapish]

Beatles--no question. I love a lot of Stones tracks and found them really enjoyable--and good--live, but those Liverpool Lads are still it for me.

[artilleryo]

I would choose deafness.

[Eddie Sheehy]

Jethro Tull...

[Paul Kotapish]

I would choose deafness.

Perhaps you could arrange to join Glenn Gould on his Desert island with Petula Clark.

[OldSausage]

I'm glad to see the Beatles and the Stones are still so underrated. It must be a lot of fun to rediscover either of these bands in 2012, for those who didn't grow up on their music. Maybe today both bands are partially obscured by their very familiarity. It can be worth revisiting even if you think you know what's there. I'd choose the Beatles, but I'd be content with either.

[Mike Bunting]

I was a Stones guy in the beginning but now that my musical tastes have grown, I find the the Beatle music has aged far better, So for this question I gotta pick the Beatles.

[poniverus]

grateful dead

[jaycat]

Chuck Berry.

[Gerry Hastie]

The Beatles. No question. Working class and true rebels.