The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones (Full version)

[@Veekator]

I grew up in the 60's and my older sister harassed my dad so much he folded and he took her to see the Beatles in 1965. Even though I met Robert Plant and Queen to name a few she will always have me beat..lol. I loved the Beatles and even wanted my named changed to John. The best way for me to compare the 2 is like this..The Beatles were the 1st full band with just a name were all members had importance and identities ...Before them it was like Gary and the Pacemakers or indv artist. They were the 1st and by the time everyone else the British Invasion and US bands followed they had perfected it to a level above all others. Songs, touring, marketing.. People would wait to see what album the Beatles would come out and to follow...Lennon & McCartney vocals, harmonizing & songwriting will never ever be matched. Then to have George is just un touchable... The thought was No Way could we ever be as good as the Beatles..but the Stones....yea...and the Kinks, the Animals,...Yea we can do that... That was more realistic..One great singer, rough, edgy.. But Lennon, McCartney & Harrison was like the 1st dream team in the Olympics... It just wasn't fair..

[@SargonofQueens]

There is no comparison. The Beatles were a boy band. The stones are a rock band.

[@henrrycapiro2045]

There was never a Rivalry like there was no competition the stones were the stones and the Beatles were the Beatles

[@juanjosevazquezgutierrez7535]

The rolling stones 💖

[@cameronpickard7456]

of course

[@dindjarin7185]

Of course

[@Paul_G73]

Of course

[@cameronpickard7456]

by far

[@Black117Panther]

By 2000 light years far 😉

[@Joey0367]

Who’s to say who’s the better band. It’s a very subjective matter. I enjoy listening to both bands but I prefer the Stones over the Beatles.

[@2006IZ]

Fair enough

[@dindjarin7185]

Well said Joe

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

@@2006IZ beatles stinked.

[@jackcarraway4707]

What made this rivalry work was how different both bands were. The Beatles were the bright and cheerful pop band and the Stones were the dirty and aggressive rock band. Ironically the Beatles were from working class northern England the Stones were from the more middle class southern England.

[@omegament-entertainment]

The Rolling Stones !!! Hell ya !!! Greatest Band in the World 🌎 !!!

[@cameronpickard7456]

greatest ever as well

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Thousand times better band than Beatles.

[@cancerandaids3822]

Imagine if The Beatles and The Rolling Stones did a collab together in mid 1968 it would’ve topped the charts and would’ve been regarded as one of the greatest songs of all time

[@sensoryoverload6809]

We love you by The Rolling Stones is the closest thing to a Beatles Stones collab. Lennon-McCartney are on backing vocals.

[@marcyngojo5256]

Beatles were greater powerwise.,musicwise and revolutionary

Yeah, I was originally all about the stones and I mean I still am but after actually giving the Beatles a real shot I realized they are the superior band. Like em or not it doesnt really matter because without them there would be no stones. They set the foundation to what music would eventually become and the stones were the anti Beatle. Their image and sound which eventually catapulted them into the limelight relied solely on the Beatles being there first.

[@mistermoontimun6503]

@Pæy-Gang Sairi agrree rolling stones sucks and boring, the who,and beach boys are better than stones

[@jrcwwl]

@Pæy-Gang Sairi "Fuck rolling stones overatted band ever". unlike your command of the English language. Maybe you should be more concerned about your dismal spelling abilities--- overatted?? Overatted is the condition of that broken down hole in the wall apartment you no doubt inhabit.

[@worldview6218]

Yeah I honestly used to always think oh people don’t know wtf they are talking about when putting the Beatles above groups like the stones or The Who or zeppelin or the small faces or the yardbirds or alllll the other great blues based rock groups but tbh even though it took me a long time in life to hop aboard that hype train and really appreciate the Beatles for exactly what they did and how they were the prototype for this whole thing like there honestly isn’t even a debate to be had here…like it’s not even comparable it’s always going to be the Beatles and it’s nothing against the stones either and doesn’t take anything away from them whatsoever

[@cameronpickard7456]

powerwise?yeah right -i wanna hold your hand,she loves you ya ya ya meek kiddie stuff

[@bendover9663]

My Dad was in his twenties in the 60s and he always tells me that him and his large group of friends always preferred the Stones but loved the Who or The Small Faces more, they did like the Beatles but were seen more of a girls pop band, kinda like a present day boyband, however in the later 60s when they changed their sound they started to like the Beatles a bit more but never as much as the aforementioned bands....

[@urmom5885]

It was also embarrassing in the 70s to say you listened to the Beatles with all the other harfet rock coming out as well

[@raiderrichard7291]

That’s what I kinda guessed (even though im no where near ur pops age). I Real men prefer the Stones. Sex,drugs&RocknRoll. And bar fights and stuff. Stones all the way. 🍻

[@snappyego908]

@@raiderrichard7291 rolling stones sucked. The Beatles are timeless

[@bobbobbins4877]

@@raiderrichard7291, that's a false narrative. The Stones were middle class art school boys who manufactured a rough image for themselves. The Beatles were the band who came through playing rock n' roll in the roughest bars and clubs in Liverpool and Hamburg. But were made to clean up their act image by Brian Epstein.

[@ednorko5128]

@@snappyego908 you're entitled to your opinion, as I am mine Stones>beatles

[@johnmarston421]

19:22 Jesus, that smile. What a handsome man

[@eloganphoto]

Beatles in the first half of sixties never did a song as good as Satisfaction. Later, never had a song as good as GImme Shelter.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

The greatest band ever was The Rolling Stones.. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are the best songwriters ever in the world.

[@RicksterGbot]

The Stones all the way.

[@SharkMinnow]

Rolling Stone are the better band. As I've gotten older I also enjoy their music more. Not into a lot of the psychedelic Beatles stuff.

[@dmcguire70]

As a musician the Beatles stuff is 10 times more complex to play and for those guys to compose those songs by themselves is genius the stones are ok musicians that wrote catchy tunes

[@Glory-Compass]

@@dmcguire70 more complex? theyre always talking about love idk do you mean instrument wise?

[@Joey0367]

The Stones are truer to rock and roll, the Beatles more of a pop band.

[@ChemicalPrecipitate]

@@Glory-Compass mostly but not always instrumental wise yes they did a number of complex chord progressions

[@shanestephenson7339]

@@Joey0367 sorry man but that’s completely untrue after 65

[@johanalagstan6598]

The Sqeaky Clean band vs The Original Bad Boys of Rock n Roll but this 1 rivalry they all win meaning the record company and eventually the fans.

[@stretch54]

The Beatles weren't really squeaky clean. Their music was more revolutionary in the second half than the Stones. What a great time to grow up though. It seemed like so much was possible as a young person then. Now as an old man it's all pretty homogeneous and bleak from my perspective.

[@wellesradio]

Keep in mind that rock and roll images are as real as professional wrestling characters. The Stones were not “original bad boys”. They were TOLD by their manager that their role was to play bad boys in a mock rivalry with the “squeaky clean” Beatles (who were told by their manager that their role was to play nice but mischievous boys) with and so they did. If Keith and Mick started to believe they were rebels that’s on them. John Lennon spent every day of his post-Beatles life saying, “Is not real. I’m not that guy. It’s all just show.” But to this day no one believes him! If Andrew Loog Oldham had told The Rolling Stones that their role was to wear white suits and engage in a decade-long slap fight with Herman’s Hermits, they would have done it.

[@francoisdesnoyers3042]

@@stretch54 Its all homogeneous and bleak because what you hear is money. The 60s were great but the 70s were fantastic!

[@francoisdesnoyers3042]

@@wellesradio The bad-boy image was encouraged but it could never be forced. No one can write music like Sister Morphine, Stray Cat Blues, Sympathy for the Devil or Bitch if you are faking it. If Lennon admitted he was a fake, I believe him.

[@Luthermutt_Notwell]

​@@stretch54 beatles were sneaky clean.

[@gjs9366]

The Rolling Beatles!

[@jsjsj3006]

That's god

[@TheKestevon]

The Beatles was boomers' Backstreet Boys

[@clapton3800]

@@TheKestevon beach boys is?

[@dindjarin7185]

@@clapton3800 Nope beatles are ! only a layperson like Beatles talk to Calvin Kaminski he is best troll here.

[@dindjarin7185]

@@TheKestevon indeed they were

[@oooyooo6155]

Rolling stones for life baby

[@Gmod2012lo1]

Huh interesting.. i didnt really expect to see exactly what ive searched for, thank you for this.

[@CertifiedSlacker]

0:03 wow the beatles had two bassists... good to know !

[@szmidlix8198]

wtf

[@liveclassicrockperformance594]

Not only that. They were all lefties

[@freddiereagan6705]

Thet actually had another one his name is Stuart Sutcliffe

[@dindjarin7185]

Bill Wyman was better.

[@dindjarin7185]

@@freddiereagan6705 Surely not the same guy on brian jones threads making no sense at all lol

[@fredcharm6064]

My heart belongs to the Beatles. I was thirteen when they came out with She loves you (1963). Beautiful music, great lyrics, great personalities. I loved John Lennon so much. The Stones, yes, their early songs, are nice, but now when I see Mick Jagger, he is so ridiculous. I like Keith Richards more, he is fun and authentic. Bravo for the Brits, you really know about music, and so many more things.

[@adolforodolfo6929]

I like both bands, but definitely prefer listening to the Beatles. However, with the passage of time I've become firmly convinced that the Kinks are better than both.

[@cv7908]

Hell yes

[@cantona57]

@Tommy Zai The Kinks were the most underrated band of the 60s

[@dindjarin7185]

The Kinks get over the meth lol 😂

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

@@cantona57 Kinks and Beatles were nowhere near The Stones.

[@scottmasson3039]

I love both bands like crazy, but the way I’ve always looked at it is very simple: The Stones were a band. The Beatles were a phenomenon. The Stones made great music. The Beatles made great art.

[@amolbhatia1449]

Personally I think that's a bit much. The Beatles weren't on some higher artistic stratosphere compared to everyone else. I think they were game changing and for their time the best band on the planet. And their melody writing was phenomenal. But at the same time I think a lot of their catelogue is filled with catchy radio friendly music rather than something truly artistic. Definitely among the greatest bands ever due to being ahead of their times and said melody writing though. Just disagree on the art part.

[@ChemicalPrecipitate]

@@amolbhatia1449 yes

[@cameronpickard7456]

nope

[@dindjarin7185]

Nope

[@robertrhein8703]

Could not have said it better myself.

[@abdelter]

the beatles 3 singer-songwriters lennon McCartney Harrison ... even solo beatles fans know that no other band can match the beatles ... ❤❤✌✌😘😘😘☮☮

[@henrrycapiro2045]

Exactly correct

[@henrrycapiro2045]

The Beatles were always be the best

[@mintakofranckzoho1498]

I prefer LED ZEPPELIN over the Beatles

[@ChemicalPrecipitate]

@@mintakofranckzoho1498 i prefer queen ove zep

[@cameronpickard7456]

stones didnt need 3 writers they had the 2 best in history

[@billyshead1339]

I think in this tiny world where we have 1 chance at it 2 great bands can exist. It’ll be ok. 👍🏻

[@Klinkerklunk]

What this documentary didn't mention was Meredith Hunter being out of his mind on meth, enraged at being beaten off the stage, and going back to his car to get his gun. It can clearly be seen in film footage when he raised the revolver. The Hell's Angel member may very well have saved the life of a Rolling Stone, and in particular Mick, as Hunter was most fixated on him being the front man. He could have shot anyone at that concert. The Hell's Angel member did his job and reacted through defense rather than malice. You can see him immediately rush Hunter, parrying his knife into him, before he could get any shots off. The kid was bonkers out of his mind, and was wearing a bright lime colored suit so I'm sure he was known to them at the time and were watching him.

[@Klinkerklunk]

@ You're right. I guess in this modern PC world we live in, it's time we rewrote what actually happened to better fit the new narrative.

[@Klinkerklunk]

@ My statement was a reaction to saying my post was "not even close to the truth". That's a powerful assessment, and it implies that most of what I said earlier never happened. The point is, whether the Angels provoked him because of his white girlfriend, or that he was violently beaten away from getting on the stage, is not the point. The point is that he drew a handgun at a crowded concert. I would assume he was the only one who waved a gun at this concert. I would assume that no one of the 500k attendants of Woodstock pulled a gun. If they did, would they be able to wave it peaceably, with no Hell's Angels to get the wrong and racist impression and make the incorrect move? There are real consequences to all of our actions, and race didn't played any factor at all in the outcome. It's remiss of logic to assume a white man pulling a long barrel handgun would be given a pass to see where he's going with this. Any police officer or security guard would shoot, given the loudness of the concert, where milliseconds count to possibly save lives. They wouldn't assess whether the gunman is white or black in that very quick time-frame, despite given the narrative that all cops are racist. If we want to posthumously George Floyd this terrible incident that happened decades ago, and review it under the Black Lives Matter agenda, then we have to radically change not just history but expected human reactions and culpability of those on the unfortunate receiving end. He pulled out a gun. Enough said.

[@Klinkerklunk]

@ Again, what if a white man went back to his car to get his gun because he was being taunted for having a black girlfriend? It's called the soft bigotry of low expectations. We would never give the white guy a pass, because he should know better, but the black guy needs lenience because they're not at the same level? Why not treat everyone the same. Not doing so means whites are thought of as adults and blacks as children who don't know any better and need excuses for behaving badly. I would also make it abundantly clear that hiring the Hell's Angels for security was a profound error in judgement. The hippies at this concert were more like punks than the summer of love, and they had criminals as their security force? They were paid $500 in beer and just got wasted and belligerent with power. It would have been a strange scene to be in, with almost constant violence from both ends. The Grateful Dead walked out because of this. The bikers were using sawed off pool cues and bike chains. The truth of the matter is though, if Hunter were to have fired straight at a crowded concert, he would have hit someone. He pulled the gun out because he was intending on using it. That was a mistake that was own. No one could ever assume he was just going to wave it around all cutesy. The Angel in question was acquitted because of the film footage. It clearly showed the gun, and the reaction from the Angel was defense and not malice.

[@Cynthiamattersbeatles]

Why are people so brainwashed into thinking that the beatles were number 1? Well, I guess, because they were the ones to start the revolution, probably because they were the first band to come out of England. The Stones did something they were building a blues foundation they wrote masterpieces they were the first band to have a strong blues influence and no other band was playing blues just the Stones.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

The Beatles aren't even in the top 4 great bands. 1. The Rolling Stones 2.Led Zeppelin 3. Pink Floyd 4.Queen and then 15th Beatles.

[@stormhawk3319]

Steven Van Sandt said from an American perspective “The Beatles introduced us to a whole new world, but it was the Stones who invited us in”.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Clearly, you lot don't know much about John Lennon. He was a wife beater, neglected his son, and had affairs. It's better not to share your erroneous opinions in the future. So as not to embarrass yourselves, so badly again.

[@trashboat2687]

In a nutshell it was like Michael Jackson and Prince

[@jonwright70]

Why make it a competition? Both great bands and the band members themselves

[@dindjarin7185]

@Calvin Kaminski Nope Stones are better

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 The Beatles are better songwriters and musicians

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 The Stones are better songwriters and musicians

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 Nah ! Dude the Stones are better

[@mikebarooshian7255]

@@dindjarin7185I know The Stones are a way better band then the Beatles were I never liked the Beatles if a person doesn’t like the stones they don’t like music The Rolling Stones will always be The Worlds Greatest Rock N Roll Band

[@dorian3260]

The really important question is, Shemp or Curly?

[@marcyngojo5256]

The Beatles wrote their own songs and have the stones their first hit.

[@cameronpickard7456]

so what? stones later wrote the best songs

[@dindjarin7185]

Second hit for Stones was from Beatles

[@dindjarin7185]

@Calvin Kaminski Beatles got famous in 1963 Stones got famous in 1962 and Stones were writing songs in 1963 in their existence talking about existence were is the beatles today troll ?

[@dindjarin7185]

@Calvin Kaminski For all of you said that The Beatles is better The Stones, I'm so sorry. The Who, The Beach Boys, The Kinks, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, The Pretty Faces , Creedence Clearwater Revival, Led Zeppelin, Kayak, Badfinger, etc made hauntingly better music than Beatles. Even Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra made better and harder music than the Beatles. I'm not saying The Beatles is bad, I just don't like the way people say that the Beatles is the best and better than everyone only a layperson like Calvin likes this band. To me, the Beatles were a overrated joke. Compared to those bands. Very very sorry.

[@dindjarin7185]

@Devilish Beelzeebub Mcfartney sings like a dog barking with his mop top lol 😂

[@petermeatballs6252]

The beatles vs the police vs the rolling stones

[@hermar3656]

Stones are responsible for the Beatles changing their style from pop boys to longer haired hippies . Paint it black was the first psychedelic song . Not tomorrow never knows

[@dindjarin7185]

Beatles were a joke compared to the Stones. Stones never imitated The Beatles and Beatles couldn't play Rock N'Roll if they tried.

[@dindjarin7185]

@Din Djarin McFartney can't even dance never mind perform. Using my name gets you no where beatles loser. Attention whore lol 😂

[@dindjarin7185]

@Din Djarin Fakeboy user lol Beatles did have one good song. But that's it. being nice lol It was band for puberty aged boys who haven't kissed a girl like you.

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 so Tomorrow Never Knows, Abbey Road Medley, and Helter Skelter are childish?

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 Yes they are

[@Luthermutt_Notwell]

​@@vitamindeeznutz4102Beatles were pathetic.

[@igorlima683]

beatles 2 bassists lmao

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Beatles sucked.

[@whenifeellow]

14:50 - Denis Leary, 2nd from the left

[@donkqdonkq1747]

Actually what the RS were doing when they started was similar with what the Beatles did in Hamburg (the image and the music).

[@dindjarin7185]

For all of you said that The Beatles is better The Stones, I'm so sorry. The Who, The Beach Boys, The Kinks, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, The Pretty Faces , Creedence Clearwater Revival, Led Zeppelin, Kayak, Badfinger, etc made hauntingly better music than Beatles. Even Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra made better and harder music than the Beatles. I'm not saying The Beatles is bad, I just don't like the way people say that the Beatles is the best and better than everyone only a layperson like Calvin Kaminski likes this band. To me, the Beatles were a overrated joke. Compared to those bands. Very very sorry.

[@dindjarin7185]

@Devilish Beelzeebub making fake profiles Devlish is that what all beatles fans like you do all day lol

[@Paul_G73]

@@dindjarin7185 looks like Calvin on the prowl again lol 😂

[@ffa65]

The Beatles were musically much better. This statement dissociates of every taste. This is just a sober fact. Keith Richards, for example, plays always very unclean and the Stones songs are musically less demanding and kept simple. The Beatles were always pioneers and the Stones only tired to copy.

[@KenTeel]

A correctioin to this video. In this video, the narrator says that the San Francisco Hells Angels were real beasts. According to Joel Selvin's book on Altamont, the San Francisco chapter of the Hells Angels were friends with the San Francisco rock bands, and had assisted those bands by doing things like watching the power cords, supplying electricity for the free concerts in Golden Gate Park (providing security so no one messed with the power to the amps and PA.) So, the San Francisco Hells Angels were on friendly terms with the SF bands and hung out with them. At Altamont, it wasn't the SF chapter of the HA that was doing the violence. It was prospects, mainly (guys who are being considered for membership in the HA), from the newly fromed San Jose chapter of the HA, primarily who were fighting with some of the crowd. The SF chapter had a history of being friendly with the bands, and the SJ chapter, was primarily doing the damage. (This is not to say the the San Francisco HA were not capable of doing real damage.) Of course they were. So, saying that the SF chapter, at Altamont, were real beasts, in kind of innacurate according to Joel's book. Also some of the Hells Angels that were there, that day, at Altamont, were helpful. They helped assist the people at the concert. Of course, other HA were not, and did some real damage. I state these things in the interest of being accurate. Another thing that might need a fact check in this video is the narrator saying that the HA deliberately lashed out at black concert goers. If I remember right, Meridith Hunter the black guy killed there, had tried to climb up on the stage. He was pushed back by the HA. Ultimately, Meridith got out a .22 caliber pistol, and that is when he got killed. So, Meridith was not entirely innocent, and he was ramped up on speed, when he was doing these things. I don't know that the HA were indiscriminatley picking on blacks, as said in this video. By the way, Joel Selvin's book is a fascinating read. If you like the subject of exactly what happened that day, at Altamont, you'll find this to be a particularly interesting read. PS: Andrew Oldham got what he wanted. He wanted the Stones to come across as a badass group, and Altamont was the fruition of his work, in that regard. Contrast that to a Paul McCartney concert. I walked right up to the front of the stage, with no one in the crowd hasseling me, and watched Paul play (in th 1970s), from about 15 feet away. Paul drew a completely different audience than the Stones. The Stones never sang about love, as a general concept (like The Beatles All You Need Is Love) The results of the Stones image that was built on roughness, was on full display, that day, at Altamont. They got what they sang about. You could hear Mick trying to calm the crowd. It's pretty ironic that he was trying to do that, while singing "... please allow me to introduce myself.... " What ye reap, ye shall sow.

[@bobbobbins4877]

The Stones found a sound that worked for them and stuck to it. The Beatles had more strings to their bow, and were always looking for the newest sound. That mentality is why they drove popular music forward more than anyone else in the 60s.

[@Glory-Compass]

No they didn't, the Stones definitely experimented more, look man I think the reason the Beatles are more famous is Because the Stones were extremely rebellious for the Standards back in the Conservative nature of the 60s, they had dirty lyrics, crazy songs, had Crazy Hairstyles and Outfits and were very wild, while the Beatles mostly Showed up in suits,and didn't have crazy hairstyles until their final days and their Songs mostly always talked about the Same Topic which is the Usual "I love you, you love me" stuff which made them (unlike the Stones) likeable among grownups, Religious leaders and Children

[@AaronStark1993]

@@Glory-Compass - The only Stones album you can really say is experimental is Their Satanic Majesty's Request and that was a direct response to Sgt Pepper. Like John Lennon said, "everything we did the Stones did two months later."

[@dindjarin7185]

@Calvin Kaminski I'm sorry troll but McFartney and dead Lennon voices are lame.

[@Glory-Compass]

@Calvin Kaminski not out of tune Jagger’s soft but loud voice worked well for their hard rock and blues music while McCartney and Lennon voices fit their pop-rock music

[@dindjarin7185]

@@Glory-Compass Calvin is a retard jealous Beatles fan.

[@Glory-Compass]

I Pick The Stones, I think they're better but the Beatles were more Famous because the Stones experimented more and weren't afraid to be rebellious and get wild(which made them very Unlikable among the Conservative Culture that was around back in the 60s), while the Beatles mostly Showed up in suits and didnt Have Crazy Hairstyles or Crazy Outfits until their final days, With their Song lyrics always talking about Love, Care and Co.(nothimg inappropriate)

[@ChemicalPrecipitate]

Lucy in the sky is diamonds is not appropriate

[@Paul_G73]

@@ChemicalPrecipitate Haha 😂

[@dindjarin7185]

@Din Djarin Look at you the beatles troll using my name lol

[@dindjarin7185]

@Din Djarin Seems the beatles troll is cracking up lol Reported for BAD Behaviour lol

[@Luthermutt_Notwell]

The Rolling Stones ❤

[@felixalcott]

25:10 Was this called copping a feel?!

[@georged4578]

🤫

[@goodlord370]

@@georged4578 ew

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

The Rolling Stones. Never liked The Beatles. ❤

[@cameronpickard7456]

beatles were fluff,stones are rock

[@Ratitosplay]

Stop tô say shit

[@rickneilson4603]

It's true, Beatles were a soft band

[@MarcoBeatles]

Maybe you didnt listen to helter skelter

[@MichaelLantz]

The Beatles were the original bad boys of rock.Listen to the Beatles live at the Star Club in December 1962.The Beatles kicked ass.It is some of Ringo Best Drumming.

[@adellapratiwi4954]

yeah? funny thing i love them both...

[@laurentlaurent65]

forever young and it's been over 50 years since the band broke up. and after they still made some classics like : Give me Love Imagine Maybe I'm Amazed It don't come Easy Etc... Well I'm waiting for a great solo career from a Stone. Maybe the band still exist because they can't... No probleme I still a Stone fan. And of course I like both Band, but please don't forget they was freinds.

[@Glory-Compass]

They Never Broke up and they're Very Close Friends unlike the Beatles, who as Time Passed Couldn't Cope with the Pressure and Let their Fame get to them and with the Death of their Manager they completely lost it +No Stones pursued a Solo Career Fully because they Know they are Stronger together, a Lesson the Beatles Never Got to Learn

[@ednorko5128]

Keith Richards had a hit album Talk is cheap. If you got off your damn Beatles cloud once in awhile, maybe you'd know this !!!!

[@ednorko5128]

The has- beens broke up,the Stones never did!

[@Glory-Compass]

@UC-0x5umgavCosQUcWF3uerg this is Beatles vs Rolling Stones debate(the real OG’s),don’t bring up Queen band. As good as Freddie was as a frontman their music is beautifully composed but when it comes to lyricism and poetry they are nothing like the stones bring me a queen or Beatles song that’s as deep or controversial like sympathy for the devil.Beatles we’re all about love while queen relied on hyping the crowd It’s a very subjective thing pick what u like .but lyrically the stones are clear

[@Glory-Compass]

@Calvin Kaminski what are u talking about? Stones are the original bad boys Of Rock.they,the doors and led zeppelin set the standard and image for other Hard rock band. AC/DC,Metallica guns n roses all owe it to the stones The Beatles like I said were only more popular because they were more acceptable in the 60s unlike bands like the Stones and the doors who were hated by parents and older audiences

[@simen-pedrokaroliussen9163]

The Beatles were historical No doubt, But so was the stones they were revolousionary and they were the bad boys, the beatles were soft but maby almost as bad as the stones

[@mrHoppedupford]

Ths Stones put out their best music in the 70s and it was better than anything any of the Beatles put out in the 70s

[@kollo3457]

The Beatles didn’t exist in the 70s

[@TheKestevon]

The Beatles was boomers' Backstreet Boys.

[@zackzallie8735]

@simon templer dont scream, bro.

[@francoisdesnoyers3042]

@ You mean to say that if interpreting your music is easy, that means your music is great? Hmmm... I don't think Beethoven would agree! LOL

[@zackzallie8735]

@@francoisdesnoyers3042 It's not the simplicity or how complex the music is, it's THE quality. Ramones and Dream Theater are both high quality of each genre respectively.

[@megadrax0838]

THE BEATLES But I Do Like The Rolling Stones

[@RicksterGbot]

Beatles sucked

[@RicksterGbot]

THE ROLLING STONES Never liked the beatles.

[@stefano.b65stef77]

I don't like any album prior to Sgt Pepper, I worship the White album and Abbey Road, they would probably be in my top 10 ever, the albums before those albums are a bit too soppy for my liking, some of those albums are not so good, such as Beatles for sale and with the Beatles. I do love at least five albums by The Rolling Stones, Sticky fingers and let it bleed are up there with abbey road and the white album PS: don't underestimate the fact that the Beatles had plenty of time to record, experimenting and so on as soon as they stopped touring, while the Stones were busier playing in concerts all over the world, lazy fab four!!

[@AaronStark1993]

Beatles. No other band was able to go from writing songs like She Loves You and Thank You Girl to songs like Tomorrow Never Knows and Strawberry Fields in only a span of 3 or 4 years. They were constantly evolving and their catalogue of songs is definitely the most diverse and varied of any band in history.

[@hermar3656]

But there would be no "tomorrow never knows " without "paint it black" which came out first . The Beatles later years were influenced by the stones ..... no doubt

[@AaronStark1993]

@@hermar3656 - The Beatles did the whole psychedelic thing before Paint it Black. George Harrison got into Indian music in 1965 and recorded a sitar part on Norwegian Wood later that year. Paint it Black came out in 1966. Like John Lennon once said, "everything we did the Stones did 2 months later."

[@hermar3656]

@@AaronStark1993 Norwegian wood is far from psychedelic sounding . Yes it had a sitar but the vibe was nowhere near the same as paint it black

[@AaronStark1993]

@@hermar3656 Check out this demo version. Very psychedelic - kzbin.info/www/bejne/noO9op-pjsxsibs

[@JimDeferio]

@@hermar3656 Paint It Black is NOT psychedelic. The first full-fledged psychedelic song to be released commercially was RAIN by the Beatles (released in late May 1966). It is silly to think that a sitar makes a song "psychedelic". Tomorrow Never Knows is by far the most psychedelic song of 1966 (but it was held back until August 1966).

[@ericthompson4406]

Love em both, but the Beatles are a kiss on the dance floor of your junior prom. The Stones are a trip behind the school dumpster with the principal's secretary......

[@DB-tp2lv]

Beatle bones ‘n’ smokin’ Stones The dry sands fall The strawberry mouth; strawberry moth; strawberry caterpillar Strawberry butterfly; strawberry fields The winged eel slither on the heels of today’s children Strawberry feels forever

[@ericdouglas7039]

Captain Beefheart was better than stones or beetles

[@dindjarin7185]

@@ericdouglas7039 Maybe the Beatles but go back to cloud cuckoo land if you think Beefheart is better than Stones.

[@Paul_G73]

@@ericdouglas7039 Nope

[@ericdouglas7039]

@@dindjarin7185 I think I will

[@dindjarin7185]

@@ericdouglas7039 Beach Boys and Beatles were lame bands.

[@Glory-Compass]

Sorry Beatle fans, But: The Rolling Stones>The Beatles

[@playboii_Dx]

not even close

[@Euro.Patriot]

Mick Jagger has a face only a mother could love.

[@bobbobbins4877]

Apology not accepted.

[@Glory-Compass]

@@Euro.Patriot oh yes lets argue about who is more handsome cuz that is defiinitely a logical debate that will decide whos better

[@Glory-Compass]

@@playboii_Dx if it wasnt close they wouldnt have a 50min video comparing them lol

[@scottmasson3039]

The myth has always said that “Rolling Stones rocked harder”. Bullshit. If you listen to Beatles live footage and recordings, Paul is a better bass player. Ringo is a harder-hitting drummer. John and George blast the guitar in a steadier more driving manner. And most importantly....the Beatles could actually sing light years better than the stones. I don’t get why people distort this fact. The Stones never made anything as heavy as Helter Skelter, Tomorrow Never Knows, Yer Blues, I Want You, Etc

[@augietouris1243]

One day you’ll listen to a little lick called “Sympathy for the Devil”, and Mick Jagger is 10x the frontman and singer than Paul. I enjoy the Beatles, but goodness gracious they’re insanely mellow compared to the stones. Do you seriously think they rocked harder than Keith Richards? Really?

[@democracyperson9900]

The Rolling Stones did rock harder than the Beatles . It's interesting that you mentioned Paul McCartney being a superior bass player to I assume you mean Bill Wymon . Well I can mention here two great examples of Bill Wymon being great on bass and better than McCartney. Just listen to midnight rambler and satisfaction . As for drumming well Charlie watts was light years ahead of Ringo Starr . Watts was a jazz drummer. Again as an example listen to Paint it Black . The drumming here is like a crescendo . So there is no competition here . As for the guitar playing . Just take Brian Jones on for example slide guitar on Little Red Rooster . Later The Stones recruited Mick Taylor . Taylor was superior to Lennon and Harrison by miles . Again listen to Can't you here me knocking from Sticky Fingers . As to who rocked harder well take Satisfaction - Honky tonk woman especially live - Monkey Man from Let it bleed . Even some of the Stones later tracks rocked harder than the Beatles . As for vocals well John Lennon had a gravely voice and as for Paul McCartney well he was tone deaf because he never went down low enough . Jagger didn't have a great voice but he had a distinctive voice . Riff wise regarding Keith Richards just take Honky tonk woman or Jumping Jack Flash or It must be hell from undercover. So all in all I would say the Stones are superior to the Beatles especially live .

[@Glory-Compass]

no way man,i love the beatles but the stones rocked way harder mick jagger is considered by many to be the best frontman in rock history "no one has moves like jagger", and keith richard is along with jimmy page the best guitarist in history, the only reaason the beatles were more famous is because they werent as rebellious as the stones were in the 60s, the stones had controversial lyrics and hairstyles and outfits,they were called devil worshippers back then the stones are the original bad boys of rock and roll, while the beatles are the goody two shoes loved by grown ups,religious leaders and co.

[@AaronStark1993]

Exactly. Any time I see someone say "the Stones rocked harder" I tell them to listen to the Beatles Live at the BBC album. You can definitely say that it is proto-punk. The bands who eventually gained that title (Sonics, Wailers, Paul Revere and the Raiders, MC5) all sounded just like the Beatles did in their very early days.

[@smoldio8744]

@@augietouris1243 lets go gang

[@xtragurl6369]

Beatles easily

[@dindjarin7185]

Nope

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 accept others opinions

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 Nope beatles fans are just lay people

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 ok then if you can’t respect others opinions then you should be deleted from existence

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 yawn

[@abigailcamu2880]

The Rutles are better nuff said.

[@dindjarin7185]

Any band is better than Beatles

[@russellroesner6073]

This is all faked Stones and Beatles music in the back ground and its so bad/distracting! It goes against common sense doing a Stones/Beatles Doc without actually playing their music and instead using a horribly executed sound track that isn't even their music. What a joke!

[@jrd690]

what a boring documentary

[@dindjarin7185]

The Beatles, what a boring band. 😴

[@loredanaf1]

I beatles anche dopo lo scioglimento hanno continuato a fare molte hit... gli stones molto poco negli ultimi 50 anni... giusto????

[@zesre9203]

Someone explain this war to me. Pls. Thank in advance

[@flygandeskote1702]

do you mean the second world war? germans bombed england during ww2.

[@zesre9203]

@@flygandeskote1702 no. I mean "the Rolling Stones vs the Beatles" war

[@flygandeskote1702]

@@zesre9203 the beatles and stones were regularly compared in the 60s bacım. they were the two leading bands of the "british invasion" in the united states.

[@zesre9203]

@@flygandeskote1702 thank you

[@flygandeskote1702]

@@zesre9203 ne demek

[@shadowstealer2790]

What poor musician has to make a living by doing such bad approximations of the Stones and Beatles music.These programmes are so cheapskate.

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

The Beatles wanted to do it in the road Enough said

[@RicksterGbot]

THE ROLLING STONES Never liked the beatles.

[@paulkelly5296]

Poor documentary with many inaccuracies (eg Tariq Ali seemingly not realising Brian Epstein had died long before the major anti - war demonstrations) and omissions. Look at the comparison of record sales and innovation. Without Beatles, no Stones and The Beatles have left us a body of work rich in variety and quality that is unrivalled. Contrary to what the documentary argues, much of The Beatles' successes came during the late sixties and long after 'Satisfaction'. Let's list some of them: 'Rubber Soul', 'Revolver', 'Sgt Pepper' and 'Abbey Road'. Even the relatively innocuous 'Hello Goodbye' was top of the UK charts five weeks longer than 'Satisfaction'.

[@user-jz6pq4zx3e]

Beatles and the rest.

[@RicksterGbot]

Beatles were awful.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

STONES and the rest.

[@iyusiyus7961]

The rolling stones lebih besar dari the beatles

[@dindjarin7185]

@Calvin Kaminski You can't even spell english beatles troll

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

The Beatles are the most well known band in history I have no idea what drugs you’ve been taking

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@Calvin Kaminski I don’t but there was another comment that was deleted

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 your on drugs

[@dindjarin7185]

@Calvin Kaminski Christ you lol 😂

[@McSorleyFan33]

The Beatles decimate the stones. I only like 3 stones songs

[@ednorko5128]

Well clearly you haven't listen to many,have you!

[@dindjarin7185]

Clearly delusional this McSorleyFan33 fella.

[@dindjarin7185]

For all of you said that The Beatles is better The Stones, I'm so sorry. The Who, The Beach Boys, The Kinks, Queen, Fleetwood Mac, The Pretty Faces , Creedence Clearwater Revival, Led Zeppelin, Kayak, Badfinger, etc made hauntingly better music than Beatles. Even Jeff Lynne of the Electric Light Orchestra made better and harder music than the Beatles. I'm not saying The Beatles is bad, I just don't like the way people say that the Beatles is the best and better than everyone only a layperson like Calvin Kaminski likes this band. To me, the Beatles were a overrated joke. Compared to those bands. Very very sorry.

[@Luthermutt_Notwell]

I don't like any beatles song.

[@Cynthiamattersbeatles]

The Stones decimate the Beatles. I only like 1 song from Beatles.

[@abigailcamu2880]

Nah both these bands suck I listen to the good ol' "Unga Bunga" they are older meaning they are easily better!

[@Veekator]

I hope you don't ever have kids or even vote for that matter..

[@kylekusuda5022]

@@Veekator I'm almost completely certain that the original commenter is being sarcastic and tongue and cheek

[@Cynthiamattersbeatles]

The Stones decimate the Beatles. I only like 1 song from Beatles.

[@spleeeen4it]

the beatles different class, leagues above the stones

[@dindjarin7185]

Nah ! The Stones are better in higher league than dead forgotten Beatles

[@dindjarin7185]

Beatles = laypersons band

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 literally every member of The Beatles were better at their instruments then anyone In The Stones

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 literally every member in the Stones were better at their instruments than the Beatles.

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 Mick Taylor was light years ahead of Harrison.

[@Wolf-zk4mi]

The Beatles all the way!!

[@cameronpickard7456]

nope

[@dindjarin7185]

Nope

[@Paul_G73]

Nope

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@cameronpickard7456 it’s their own opinion

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 it’s their own opinion

[@bengie2015]

Prefer listening to the stones, but The Beatles are the greatest band to ever do it.

[@cameronpickard7456]

did nothing great

[@RicksterGbot]

Beatles did nothing

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Beatles' music is dull and boring.

[@RicksterGbot]

THE ROLLING STONES Never liked the beatles.

[@thedarkartist777]

The KinKs

[@dindjarin7185]

They Sucked ... only the Stones were the true master of the sixties.

[@thedarkartist777]

Love The Stones. if I had to rank the all time greatest bands, I'd put them second behind The KinKs. You'll also notice how much they influenced each other as contemporaries. Together, their innovation is unmatched.@@dindjarin7185

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Kinks were shit

[@RicksterGbot]

Kinks were like the Beatles. Crap. The Rolling Stones have meaning.

[@thedarkartist777]

@@RicksterGbot The KinKs were the first to use Eastern Music in their music with “See My Friends” arguably invented Hard Rock when Dave Davies bladed his amp on purpose, which The Stones would use on “Satisfaction” and “Jumpin’ Jack Flash”, and wrote one of the first concept albums with “Face To Face” which was released in 1966. I love The Rolling Stones, find The Beatles overrated. Yet for me, it’s no comparison. Lennon-McCartney wrote The Rolling Stones first hit. Ray Davies didn’t need Mick Jagger or Keith Richards to do that for The KinKs.

[@KenTeel]

The Beatles were far superior melodically. And, that is directly related to Jim McCartney, Paul's father. Jim had his own horn band and gigged around Liverpool. He exposed Paul to a variety of musical styles, and that planted a seed in Paul's brain, that showed up in his writing. Paul's richness in style and melody, was the Beatles powerful element. None of the Stones had parents that played music in bands, and therefore were more limited in their exposure to music, as children. Paul's superior intellect, combined with an exposure to 20's, 30's, and 40's music, through his dad, set Paul up to be the powerhouse element in the Beatles. The Stones had no such thing. Mick's father was a fitness instructor. Keith's father was a blue collar worker. Neither played in bands, or encouraged musical development in a way that Jim did with Paul. Paul's skill and diverstity affected John Lennon. Lennon only had exposure, from a parent, to music through his mother playing some banjo. So, John was limited in his scope. Paul helped expand that in John. So, the Stones, in no way, shape or form had the richness of melodic content that The Beatles music had. They really, as Paul has said were kind of a roots based band, with blues primarily, and some country, as foundations. They were much more basic than The Beatles, musically.

[@dindjarin7185]

Beatles were a joke compared to the Stones. Stones never imitated The Beatles and Beatles couldn't play Rock N'Roll if they tried.

[@Cynthiamattersbeatles]

The Stones decimate the Beatles. I only like 1 song from Beatles.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Beatles sucked. 🤢🤮

[@KenTeel]

@@PaulGraham-ts7qd Tell what instrument(s) you play, show songs that you've written. Talk about music theory. If you can't do these things, you're just another bag of hot air with no knowledge of the subject.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

@@KenTeel Upset ? I've written better songs than nursery rhythms pop band Beatles.

[@marvinlassegue951]

The Beatles all the way.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Nah ! It's the rolling stones. 😎

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Clearly, you lot don't know much about John Lennon. He was a wife beater, neglected his son, and had affairs. It's better not to share your erroneous opinions in the future. So as not to embarrass yourselves, so badly again.

[@MrKevinjones41]

The greatest band ever was the Beatles John Lennon and Paul McCartney was the best song writers in the world

[@dindjarin7185]

Nope it was Jagger and Richards

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 Lennon and McCartney are literally known as the two greatest songwriters of all time like literally most people consider them to be

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 Pfft to beatles fans lol

[@dindjarin7185]

@@vitamindeeznutz4102 two nursery rhythms songwriters.

[@vitamindeeznutz4102]

@@dindjarin7185 Oh yeah you ever listened to Maxwells Silver Hamer, I Am The Walrus, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Happiness Is A Warm Gun, Run For Your Life ETC? Clearly not if you think they’re nursery songwriters

[@duff0120]

the rolling stones isnt even in top 4 greatest bands.. 1 is the beatles, 2 is Led zeppelin, 3 is pink floyd, 4 is queen and then 5, rolling stones

[@Paul_G73]

Duff your delusional go to medical hospital there's a good troll.

[@dindjarin7185]

Duff the beatles suck

[@Luthermutt_Notwell]

Beatles, Zeppelin, Queen couldn't play rock and roll if they tried.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

Wouldn't even put beatles in my top 10 bands.

[@PaulGraham-ts7qd]

The Beatles aren't even in the top 4 great bands. 1. The Rolling Stones 2.Led Zeppelin 3. Pink Floyd 4.Queen and then 15th Beatles.