The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (rock, album, songs)

anticipation · 07-19-2005, 11:52 AM

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

**Urban Hatemonger** · 07-19-2005, 11:58 AM

I point you in the direction of this thread that says everything i`d like to express here

10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

SATCHMO · 07-19-2005, 12:29 PM

^^^^^^ couldn't have said it better if I tried.

HunterTyler · 07-19-2005, 12:35 PM

The beatles by a long shot, the abbey road album has songs which are still musicly ahead of stuff today

adidasss · 07-19-2005, 12:50 PM

the rolling stones, they were pure rock way back in the begining of the sixties while the beatles were still singing their lollipop music for the girlies ( "i wanna hold your hand, i wanna hold your hand..."....please....)

Orange_Plectrum · 07-19-2005, 02:21 PM

The Beatles for definate I say. The musical geneius involved in revolver, abbey road and sgt.peppers is just amazing. Well thats what I think anyway...

itchytasty · 07-19-2005, 04:01 PM

Stones. I was raised on 'em.

Stu · 07-20-2005, 03:10 AM

the beatles- i adore them. to those say they lack diversity may i point out the fact that their early career was the complete antithesis to their latter career. their experimentation with brass, time pieces and other sound effects opened up new avenues for other bands in the late 70s. but hey sure a lot of you disagree.

dog · 07-20-2005, 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adidasss

the rolling stones, they were pure rock way back in the begining of the sixties while the beatles were still singing their lollipop music for the girlies ( "i wanna hold your hand, i wanna hold your hand..."....please....)

pure rock?

anyway, i like beatles better, their music ranges so much, from happy love ballads to psycadelia to crazy distortion blues songs.
i like rollin stones but alotta their songs sound the same

**Urban Hatemonger** · 07-20-2005, 10:51 AM

I think it`s rather unfair to say the Beatles never evolved.

It just so happens that I think what they evolved into was ****

View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles
Stones	35	29.91%
Beatles	82	70.09%
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-19-2005, 12:29 PM
SATCHMO Dirt McGirt 08' Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Through the looking glass Posts: 1,687	^^^^^^ couldn't have said it better if I tried. __________________ We're trapped in the belly of this horrible machine.....and the machine is bleeding to death

07-19-2005, 12:35 PM
HunterTyler Groupie Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 40	The beatles by a long shot, the abbey road album has songs which are still musicly ahead of stuff today

07-19-2005, 12:50 PM
adidasss deadbeat Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Croatia Posts: 4,674	the rolling stones, they were pure rock way back in the begining of the sixties while the beatles were still singing their lollipop music for the girlies ( "i wanna hold your hand, i wanna hold your hand..."....please....) __________________

07-19-2005, 02:21 PM
Orange_Plectrum Groupie Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 11	The Beatles for definate I say. The musical geneius involved in revolver, abbey road and sgt.peppers is just amazing. Well thats what I think anyway...

07-19-2005, 04:01 PM
itchytasty meh Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: At the Mountains of Madness Posts: 305	Stones. I was raised on 'em.

07-20-2005, 03:10 AM
Stu Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: London, England Posts: 3,157	the beatles- i adore them. to those say they lack diversity may i point out the fact that their early career was the complete antithesis to their latter career. their experimentation with brass, time pieces and other sound effects opened up new avenues for other bands in the late 70s. but hey sure a lot of you disagree.