Talk of Austin

By Anonymous

October 27, 2006 07:19 PM | Link to this

NONE OF THE ABOVE!

This is Willie Nelson and Outlaw Country Music Town! Cowboy hats and boots and lots and lots and lots of beer and weed! That is the REAL Austin,Texas under the faux liberal trappings.

Don’t forget the hundreds of garage bands either.

By TANYA2U!

October 24, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

THE ROLLING STONES PERIOD

By John in Longview

October 24, 2006 10:12 AM | Link to this

Everyone is forgetting the Beatles wrote the Stones a hit (maybe a #1) on the back of a napkin. A give-away while sitting in a club! Greatest writers ever. Also, the Beatles quit touring because they couldn’t hear themselves playing in concert. Partly because of the small amps of the day; partly because of the screaming fans. Anyone can keep playing, it takes talent to go down in history in just 10 years. BEATLES!

By Jim Cushman

October 24, 2006 07:49 AM | Link to this

How can you compare ANYONE to The Beatles? You can’t….they are head & shoulders above anybody else! Their music….personalities…their humor…the look of the early Beatles…the changes that they made! No Beatles?….well then..you don’t have The Stones…Herman’s Hermits..The Who..no electric Dylan…no Byrds…No Led Zep..nothing! Best rock’n’roll band EVER!!

By Michael Harris

October 23, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

I love both bands (have seen the Stones 3 times, once with each rhythm guitarist). I admire the Beatles for calling it quits when it was no longer appropriate to continue. I admire the Stones for continuing all this time, but I think they peaked around Sticky Fingers and don’t have very many great songs to show for the last 35 years of work compared to the first 8 or 10 years. If I had to choose one band “not to live without,” it’s the Beatles, no contest.

By Beatles4-e-ver

October 23, 2006 01:29 AM | Link to this

I just went to the Stones concert. It was good. I was sad it wasn’t the Beatles. The Beatles were just the best. Simple question to answer, really.

p.s. - The Beatles were “guitars and grit” as well. “Helter Skelter,” HELLO!!!

By Jody Williams

October 22, 2006 11:43 PM | Link to this

I’d like to think that ours is more a city of light, of good days and sunshine, therefore spiritually akin to the Beatles than to the Stones.The Beatles’ music is richer, more creative and imaginative. Of course, we do have an excess of heavy metal, punk,etc.—death-obsessed bands (not really worthy to be compared to the Stones who’ve done lots of good ol’ rock ‘n’ roll for @ 40 years now). Anyway, if the Beatles’ influence is less apparent, it’s because they’re basically inimitable.

By Chris

October 22, 2006 07:33 PM | Link to this

The Stones? 43 years and still at it. Haven’t written anything good in 20 years, but hey. The Beatles? 7 years recording history and then called it a day……. NOW, in the 43 years, the Stones have only 8 #1 hits. The Beatles pumped out 20 #1 hits in 7 years. (not counting 4 #1’s they gave away in the mid-60’s or the 10 colloctive #1’s as solo artists) That would be 34 #1 hits to 8. The Beatles were YEARS beyond anybody.

By Stroppage Fillingsworth

October 22, 2006 04:35 PM | Link to this

Longevity - Stones (Obviously)

Quality of Music - Beatles, by a hair. Lennon-McCartney was a more prolific music making machine and I think the overall quality of their work was superior to that of Jagger-Richards. I also think that the beatles were more eclectic.

Live Performance - I think the Stones are a better arena/live band.

Beatles make better albums, Stones better concerts. Snoop Dogg is better than both.

By BeatlesLover

October 22, 2006 04:24 PM | Link to this

W/O The Beatles, the Stones wouldn’t even exist. Hands down, THE BEATLES.

By Red_Coal_Carpet

October 22, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

This is easy; The Rolling Stones of course! The Beattles aren’t even in the same category as the Stones. The Beattles chucked it and called it quits after 10 years or so. The Stones have been at it for over 40 years and show no signs of stopping!

By Fernando Rebolledo

October 22, 2006 02:10 PM | Link to this

My respects to The Beatles, a great pop band, but the Rolling Stones are the WORLD GREATEST ROCK’ROLL BAND… Zilker Park is waiting for us!!

By Molly Shannon

October 22, 2006 01:00 PM | Link to this

Obviously Austin is not a Stones city, witness the fact that we cannot even fill up a small venue (50,000) and have not sold more than 40,000 tickets days before the Stones concert. Events such as SXSW and the ACL festival, where much tamer bands play, are sold out every year. The Stones took a chance on Austin, and trust me, they never will again. It is embarrassing.

By adastra

October 22, 2006 12:55 PM | Link to this

The 13th Elavators were my main musical influence.

By Alex

October 22, 2006 11:29 AM | Link to this

Uhh… The question isn’t “Who’s better,”. It’s “Which band is more like Austin?” Look, we’re all impressed at your musical knowledge which includes such obscure, independant gigs such as The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and The Who (I don’t even know who that last band is!). But try to stick to answering the question rather than impressing us with your musical acumen.

By Jim Yznaga

October 22, 2006 11:26 AM | Link to this

The Beatles were better. The Stones copied the beatles throughout the sixties. The beatles come out with “let it be” so the copycat stones come out the same year with “let it bleed”. the stones wanted to be the Beatles. Beatles #1 group ever.

By McCartneys Future Wife

October 22, 2006 10:17 AM | Link to this

Lennon and McCartney or Jagger and Richards?
Please. This is no contest!
Beatles all the way!!!!

By StrawberryFieldsForever

October 22, 2006 10:13 AM | Link to this

The Stones would be nothing without the Beatles. Period. The Beatles were so popular all the record agencies were constantly hounding them to find out which bands they liked. George Harrison told one of them the Stones were pretty good and BAM! They were signed right away. Besides that, if you were just a casual fan of either I am sure you could name more Beatles songs than Stones songs. The Beatles were innovators revolutionaries.

By Spanky

October 22, 2006 09:44 AM | Link to this

The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles? As one who loves “Honky Tonk Women” and “A Day in the Life” I like ‘em both. But if forced to choose: BEATLES 4 EVER!

By Scott Helms

October 21, 2006 09:43 PM | Link to this

Come on, guys… the Beatles were a nice little pop band, with some nice poetry that reflected 1960’s sensibilities, but the Stones ARE rock and roll - and still are. I have great respect for what the trailblazing Beatles did for pop, and rock, music, but the Rolling Stones are THE band that wrote the book. They connect to the blues roots of Chuck Berry, Howlin’ Wolf, Muddy Waters, and so many others - and they do it in style, even today. Stones, baby!!

By Mgirl

October 21, 2006 07:39 PM | Link to this

The Stones are the most over-rated band in the history of rock and roll. Misogynistic too. Have you ever listened to the lyrics of “Under My Thumb?” They do put on quite a theatrical performance, but that says little about the quality of their music. It’s just smoke and fancy lights to hide the fact that they should have stopped playing years ago.

By ED-WORLD

October 21, 2006 07:08 PM | Link to this

Beatles vs. Stones - not possible. They are equally important. The Beatles are the way, the Stones are the attitude,…you need both to make it.

By Adrian

October 21, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

The Beatles were always more than just a rock band. The Who have always been the greatest live rock band. The Stones are great but lets face it, they lost their way when Brian Jones died. They never regained their creative cutting edge since then. Brian was their soul.

By Robert

October 21, 2006 03:27 PM | Link to this

A lot of you pointed out the reason you cannot do a comparison. They are very different bands, with different styles, and the Beatles were around for one generation of music, the Stones for several. The Beatles were more of a studio band in their later years, while the Stones have always been a road band. Anyways, being a city centered around music, you must realise different people have different tastes. Everybody has different favorite bands. I abstain my vote…

By SoulAdventurer

October 21, 2006 01:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry guys..the stones are badass but were never even in the same class as the Beatles. They always wanted/tried to be but they could never obtain in 44 years the prominence that the Beatles obtained in a mere decade. The stones are great…the Beatles are Legends. The stones could ‘rock-out’ but the Beatles could ‘rock’ and write a powerful, meaningful song at the same time. They were the voice for a generation to say the least.

By TLP3

October 21, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

THe Rolling Stones are the single greatest rock n roll band of all time. The Beatles are highly overrated, and can’t hold a candle to the stones. 44 yrs. of great music and amazing live shows. Besides Let it Bleed is far better than let it be. Song for song, album for album the Stones are the greatest.

By keith

October 21, 2006 10:36 AM | Link to this

i have nothing against the stones or the beatles, but just how many posts is the statesman gonna put up in TOA about the stones….yeah it’s a coup for the city to get their concert, but there are other more pressing issues for this town about where you got your tickets or is Austin a stones or beatles town…no wonder people hate the statesman more and more…

By Kawieboy

October 21, 2006 10:28 AM | Link to this

Last time I checked the Beatles weren’t a band anymore.

By Farmer Dave

October 21, 2006 07:44 AM | Link to this

Bob Wills is still the king. Just ask Mick.

By Jefe

October 20, 2006 10:43 PM | Link to this

Being a band means playing live. The Stones mopped the floor with The Beatles when it came to being an actual real live rock and roll band. Austin is definelty more of a Stones town because of that, we are after all the “live music capital of the world”.

By Fritz

October 20, 2006 02:16 PM | Link to this

Well, north of Enfield is more of a Beatles town and south is more of a Stones town. Maybe with some Monkeys fans sprinkled throughout.

By Grande

October 20, 2006 01:41 PM | Link to this

Remember Let It Bleed? Probably not as much as you remember Let It Be. The stones always wanted to be the beatles. They just couldn’t.

By bloghard

October 20, 2006 01:21 PM | Link to this

Aren’t the Stones still going strong? Stupid question.

stupid question? yep. the answer. no.

By TX CAT GAL

October 20, 2006 12:21 PM | Link to this

Guitar and Grit will be here in Austin “Rolling Stones!” Along in spirit Stevie Ray Vaugh the Beattles, and many more. Look into the stars they’ll all be watching. So look out everyone and take care of one another. I’ll be there and that’s true love in itself. What we’re thankful for is “Austin, Texas” “there’s no place like home!”

By Ed Marimba

October 20, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

The Beatles? Didn’t they break up in 1970? Aren’t the Stones still going strong? Stupid question.

By the5thbeatle

October 20, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

Puh-leeze. Who says the Beatles don’t have “guitars and grit?” The White Album anyone? Have you LISTENED to Helter Skelter recently? Beatles ROOL!

By Mike Thompson

October 20, 2006 06:52 AM | Link to this

The Beatles vs. The Stones? That’s an easy one. The answer? The Who. Yep, The Who comes in as a dark horse in your poll. Think of Alejandro Escovedo doing “the windmill” as he plays his Gibson SG. Classic Pete Townsend. There’s a bit of the Stones (guitar and grit) and the Beatles (melody and love) as well as the punk attitude of The Who in Austin. However this weekend in Austin, grit and guitars will rule. Ladies and gentlemen, The Rolling Stones!