If I lived in the past I would still be rhapsodising over the Stones .
Yes I do just not the Stones particularly .
So hes brought you a lot of fun well ok that you not me .
Doesnât make me grumpy.
They are alright .
No where near the Beatles.
Hurrah!! 
Now youâre not grumpy :-D:-D
Donât think they want to be compared to the Beatles because most of the Beatles are dead and the ones surviving are waiting for the undertaker to pop round.
Completely different styles of music but then again if some one only listens to the Beatles they would never know this.:twisted:
I have to admit that I preferred the Beatles to the Stones in that era ⊠had several Beatles records but none of the Rolling Stones. 
1 Like
Yes because it was plugged on the radios to sell to the crazed fans whilst the Stones hardly got played except for Pirate radio stations.
I must say that Beatles early music I could take or leave it but their later music did catch my attention.
I agree Longfellow, you canât really compare the Beatles with the Stones.
One is pure pop and then psychedelic, and the other is based on bluesâŠat least thatâs how I see it.
I love blues, so Stones music has always appealed more.
But I love some Beatles too!
At school we used to compare the idols we lovedâŠElvis for me! 
My big sister liked Pat BooneâŠyuk! 
The Beatles are far more superior musicians .
The stones were no where near them
1 Like
You forgot IMO! 
Thatâs a fact !
It is!
Should be compulsory! 
Also donât like the way Jagger pranced around the stage.
Give me a break !
So Macca and Ringo are fine touring the world then? 
Musical style aside, the main difference between the Beatles and the Stones is that the Stones were cool.
I think folks have to appreciate just how long they have been up there as well Annie. I doubt the majority of those on that 2018 list will still be there in 20 years let alone 50. Great artists IMO. They used to make me feel so rebellious and I enjoyed it. Made my dad furious they did.
I hope Mick has got a few more years left in him yet and gets better soon.
I saw the Stones at Wembley in 1990 (Urban Jungle Tour). A great show. The whole of one end of the stadium was the stage and Mick strutted his stuff up and down the entire length of it.
My mate and I were close to the left-hand end and within about 20 feet of the man when he came to where we were standing. A time to remember.
I wasnât born when they first came out. My much older brother was a big fan though. I can understand why parents in that era would have hated them. Totally anti-establishment and so funny that Jagger is now knighted! It says the Queen didnât want to do it in person.
I was there, Mart!
It was in support of the Steel Wheels album and I remember the band being booked for Wembley for five nights. However, they only played three because Keith Richards broke his finger.
I was in the RAF at the time and we got involved with stewarding duties. I was lucky enough to see some big bands (and football play-offs) during my 2-year posting at Northolt.
Well fancy that eh!
âGuns Nâ Rosesâ was playing there too and âNothing Compares To Youâ (SinĂ©ad OâConnor) was playing over the system as we walked into the stadium. I came away from the concert and everything sounded muffled to my ears. We were really close to the stage speakers. No wonder I have tinnitus these days. 
Dead right Mart, thatâs perhaps the same reason I have tinnitus too. Too much loud music throughout my life.
Iâve been racking my brain trying to think who the support act were for the Rolling Stones on that tourâŠwas it a band from Scotland? âGunâ or somebody? Canât remember.
Iâd love to have seen them last year (like the lucky Ruthio did 
), but I went to see Roger Waters instead. One big band per year at those prices Iâm afraid.