Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
I can't find any reason what he said would make Jagger defenders will get out of their mothballs ! Conclusion, Jagger defenders don't give a poopy !
See you .
|
Yes, exactly, there's the difference between Stones' and Beatles' defenders. Beatles's defenders protect their band furiously like Bluffley, and we, Stones' defenders don't give much ****.
And as for the thread's main idea, all the 10 reasons that you've mentioned are perfectly correct, except that Mick Jagger is the greatest frontman of all time, in my opinion he is second only to James Brown, but still none of the Beatles can't compare to him. In fact, The Beatles are the most ridiculously looking rock band ever. However, you can't just mention 10 facts and conclude that one artist is better than another. As a passionate Stones fan, I admit that Beatles are way better and influential musically. On the other hand, The Stones are
THE rock band. They are the prototype of a rock band, they are way more charismatic and cool. The longevity is an important factor, too, but still I can't say that they are better. #1 Beatles, and very close #2 Stones, that's how I see it.