Quote:
The topic of this thread is "The Beatles vs. the Stones"--who's BETTER. It's NOT about whether or not the Stones have created "some really amazing, innovative, and influential music."
By your own admission, the Stones have made some "crap" music over the years (actually quite a bit of "crap" music, including several of their albums). Whereas the Beatles NEVER made even one "crap" album. The Beatles CONSISTENTLY and REPEATEDLY turned out "really amazing, innovative, and influential music"--whereas the Stones have been an inconsistent "hit or miss" type band for over the last thirty years.
By virtually every known indicator of greatness, the Beatles destroy the Rolling Stones:
1. Record Sales: The Beatles have sold over a BILLION albums worldwide, which easily dwarfs what the Stones have sold. Also, the Beatles have FAR MORE #1 hits. This doesn't look good for the Stones, who have been around about 36 YEARS longer.
Easy victory in this category for the Beatles.
2. Musical Influence: The Beatles are easily the most influential rock band in human history, and very likely the most influential act in music history--in ANY genre.
Easy victory in this category for the Beatles.
3. Social Influence: Again, easily the most influential rock band in history. The Beatles took not only the music world by storm, but the entire CULTURE of North America, Europe and the British Empire--and were also immensely influential in the more advanced Asian and Latin nations.
Easy victory in this category for the Beatles.
4. Consistency: The Beatles produced a prodigious amount of music during their relatively brief existence. Few bands in history have released so many original albums in such a short span of time. Every single one of their albums and virtually all of their songs maintained the highest musical standards.
Easy victory in this category for the Beatles.
5. Innovation: Their albums and songs were incredibly diverse and groundbreaking. Albums like "Rubber Soul", "Revolver", "Sgt. Pepper", "The Magical Mystery Tour" and "The White Album"--were virtually REVOLUTIONARY in their impact.
Easy victory in this category for the Beatles.
Quite frankly, I can't think of one relevant category where the Stones can be considered even equal to the Beatles, much less superior.
Summation: The Beatles reign supreme over the Stones.
|
everything you said there had a pro-beatles bias, and was based completely on opinion. while you say that the stones created some crap music in their day....well.....thats by no means based on any fact whatsoever. hell....while people may say that fallout boy is one of the greatest bands ever....my opinion on them, based on the quality of their music, is that they are horrible. that doesnt make them a horrible band, its just my opinion, and why i choose not to listen to them. you may say that the stones put out some crappy music, well, to you it may be crap, but to others it may be the greatest thing ever.
as for consistency, its also an opinion. no band has consistently great albums. and even after saying that...the quality of each album is based on opinion. you cant make posts like that, trying to prove a point with facts....when all you have is opinion. and to say that one band is more influential than the other, based on opinion....carries absolutely no credibility whatsoever.
so in a nutshell.....that last post was useless and a waste of your time.
__________________
How'd I end up here to begin with? I don't know.
Why do I start what I can't finish?
Oh please, don't barrage me with questions to all those ugly answers.
My ego's like my stomach- it keeps shitting what I feed it.
But maybe I don't want to finish anything anymore..
maybe I can wait in bed 'til she comes home. and whispers....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Shooting Star
Remember kids: It's only real metal if the vocalist sounds like he's vomiting up a fetus. \m/
|