BEATLES OR STONES

[@robphilpott43]

It’s ok to love both.

[@dennislawson8910]

Great video Glen! Interesting, provocative, & enjoyable. Of course Beggars Banquet rules. I still love the Beatles. Well done.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Thanks Dennis…I think the Beatles will rule in the end and Banquet is amazing..

[@flamingroove]

I listened to "Live At The Racket, NYC" yesterday. Stones are still making great records and selling out shows. The Beatles were BIG, but the Stones kept going. No question, the Stones rule. In my humble opinion.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Nice..thanks..

[@canadianstudmuffin]

Easily The Beatles... but the Stones were the 2nd best 60s band for me.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

I thought you would have picked The Beach Boys..

[@LarryGravesCanadianStudmuffin]

@@GlenKellawayfromthebasement Dang you, Glen!!

[@mutant_blues]

I would say that The Stones are the greatest rock band in the history of music and The Beatles are the most important and influential...

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Well said..I love that..I might steal it and delete your comment so no one knows..👍❤

[@morrisgautreau6704]

I enjoy The Beatles more! I do like The Stones, but considering how short of a time the Beatles were doing their thing and that The Stones are still going, not knowing when to quit. All the albums The Beatles did are awesome, but I can't say the same about everything The Stones did.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

The Beatles were certainly more prolific.

[@ethan-c093]

In my personal opinion I would prefer to listen to the Rolling Stones, but that is just because I prefer blues based music.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

That is good reason..me too..

[@AisForAliceBisForBob]

I love both, but I think it comes down my mood. If I'm feeling nostalgic I'll listen to the Beatles. If I want to listen to music I'll play the Stones. Cheers!

[@JackTheMusicGuy]

What do you mean if you want to listen to music you'll choose stones? Im a little Lost...

[@AisForAliceBisForBob]

@@JackTheMusicGuy The Beatles evoke more nostalgia and sentimentality to me than the Stones. Kind of like the saying, "you listen to the lyrics of a song when you're sad, but you listen to the music when you're happy

[@dcmphotog8452]

I think the Beatles have a broader appeal. I know my kids, when they were little, were more apt to sing along to a Beatles song than a RS track. And I'm sure that over the years there have been way more Beatles covers (William Shatner's "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" comes to mind).

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Great point, that kind of where I was going with top 40 radio

[@audiofool4u]

Another category I think worthy of considering would be the number of artists around the globe who have chosen to record Beatles or Rolling Stones compositions. I couldn’t tell you what the exact numbers are, but I would expect The Beatles to win that one by a mind boggling amount. As The Stones kept on playing and composing after the Beatles split up I think it would be fair to include subsequent Lennon, McCartney and Harrison solo artist compositions in the totals, which takes The Beatles win in that category to the outer reaches of observable space.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Personally I don’t think any solo Beatles album would rank higher than the five Stones albums I mentioned.

[@audiofool4u]

@ Yes, I suppose my point was a little bit disconnected to your theme. I was just suggesting that Beatles’ compositions are more widely covered than Rolling Stones’ compositions and that gave them an extra reason to be considered superior to The Stones in any hypothetical competition.

[@jameswilson7084]

The Beatles' biggest advantage over The Rolling Stones, was having two of the best singers and songwriters of all time in their ranks. John and Paul are my favorite singers of all time, and 2nd and 3rd favorite songwriters, behind Bob Dylan. Taken together as Lennon-McCartney, I think they topped or tied Bob Dylan in the '60's.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Richards and Jagger wrote a few classic tunes but it took time for them to develop as songwriters..John and Paul were born to compose..

[@samstjohn1994]

Beatles in terms of creativity, nearly perfect catalog and strength of each member. If you took the Stones as musicians they'd rank much lower, but, they rocked harder. The Beatles had that creative element, the Stones had the grit, kind of like me.

[@AnthonyKiyola]

Easily the Stones but I really like the Beatles. When I was a kid the Beatles were my favourite and in high school I went through a Beatles phase but that was the peak. As for the Stones, I found their music much more interesting the older I got. There is no doubt that albums like Sgt Pepper and Abbey Rd are great albums but for me I find them a little boring. My 5 go to Beatles albums are the White Album, Please Please Me, Rubber Soul, Revolver and …. Help/Let It Be tied. I agree with your Stones picks but if Some Girls replaced Aftermath, that would have been good, too. Next, the Stones vs The Beach Boys 😊

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

I will leave Stones vs Beach Boys to Larry..I don’t own any Beach Boy albums..

[@dennislind8411]

This is a tough one. I don't listen to either a lot anymore. I guess when i do listen to one or the other, i pick Beatles. Stones are a great listen but there is a sameiness to their music. The Beatles had more variety to their music with three singers/writers. I will choose Beatles.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Good point about variety…

[@charlieanderson8497]

Beatles by far are the better band. Stones were good during the Taylor years. And I like The Kinks better than Stones. Stones do put on a great show.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Beatles it is..who can argue with that..well, I guess I tried to…

[@davepounds8924]

Beatles or Stones?? For me that’s impossible to pick!!! I bought each bands records the day they came out! I couldn’t pick one as each band were the Kings of the British Invasion in the early 60s

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Dave..I did the same..Like choosing your favourite child.

[@jameswilson7084]

It's The Beatles of course. But, The Rolling Stones are a close second for me. Two of only three or four artists who have at least 100 excellent songs in their music catalog. The other two being Bob Dylan, and maybe Paul McCartney solo. I can't think of another example. But, Taylor Swift will probably eventually reach that plateau for me. 😊 Look at it this way, The Beatles accomplished in less than 8 years, what The Rolling Stones have taken 60.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Well said James..

[@dr.s.]

Mick and Keef had Charlie to control their egos. In some cases using his fists. I'd go with the Stones. Beatles are too pop for me.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

Maybe Pete Best would have kept John and Paul in line…lol..Stones it is👍👍

[@dr.s.]

@GlenKellawayfromthebasement I don't know, I think the Beatles as a band were pretty much done by the time they broke up. And I doubt that they could have kept up with the acts that came up in the late 60s and early 70s on both sides of the pond. They were highly influential, and I would even give them the title of the most influential band of all time. But I'm a rocker, and for me, that's the Stones, Zepplin, Hendrix, etc.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

@@dr.s. It sure would have been great see how it would have played out if they stayed together..

[@bobf.5538]

The Stones are dinosaurs. They stay together hoping all other bands die before they do..they Lost Brian Jones and Bill Wyman left.& Charlie Died.Beatles had harmony and melody had 3 singers 4 if you count Ringo..Stones have Mick.too much Stones music has a sameness to it.

[@GlenKellawayfromthebasement]

But they weren’t dinosaurs in the 60’s and early 70’s…

[@bobf.5538]

​@GlenKellawayfromthebasement my brother in law is a bigger stones fan than the Beatles although his 2 favorite albums are the white album and let it be .his fav stones album is Sticky Fingers he has a few copies of espically the deluxe version .I have 6 stones albums and probably 40 Beatles