Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 07-05-2011, 05:49 PM   #351 (permalink)
starrynight
Music Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 937
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBig3 View Post
He made good points
Where?


Anyway answering the OP.

So on point one. In what way was Keith Richards a cool guitarist? McCartney was a great bassist and could play lead, and so could Harrison and Lennon. I don't think Keith Richards looks cool either.

Big Lips is the greatest frontman? Well I suppose he could pout, beyond that I think he was just trying to make up for the lack of the group in other areas. For The Beatles Lennon was humorous and charismatic and McCartney had charm.

Jane Asher was nice though and she went out with McCartney.

The Beatles did songs about all the topics you say they didn't.

I'm struggling to see The Beatles faces on the cover of The White Album.

Wings were great in the 70s weren't they? They may have even outsold The Rolling Stones in that period. They certainly had far more memorable and famous songs.

The Beatles stopped touring as it was too much hassle at that stage as they were so famous and they were able to explore the possibilities in the studio. The Rolling Stones never quite reached that level of worldwide adoration or studio experimentation. The Beatles could play very well live of course.

Charlie Watts would probably never have been offered something like that because he was not as famous as Ringo Starr.

Yeh, you would choose The Frog Chorus song, catchy isn't it?

The early Rolling Stones ALSO wore matching clothing, so the point is invalid. The Beatles of course changed their image a great deal through that decade as well.
__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on
starrynight is offline   Reply With Quote