Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 01-23-2005, 09:38 AM   #11 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ?
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LedZepStu
everyone has a right to say what they want regardless of people like you telling them they shouldnt. anyway, opinion is an arguement in itself, what other way can you say to someone "on no, jagger isnt the best frontman ever?" opinion is the basis of every arguement. you cannot objectively proove anyone is better than anyone else. anfd how does it spoil it for everyone else?!
But you`ve missed the most obvious point. This thread isn`t about Mick Jagger being the best frontman in the world. It`s about the Stones being better than the Beatles. Yes it is only opinion , but the Beatles didn`t have a frontman , so to me that makes Jagger a better frontman than anyone in the Beatles by default.

Besides isn`t it obvious by the title of this thread that this is going to be a one sided arguement. Tell me i`m wrong , tell me i`m an ******* , come up with a list why the Beatles were better show some PASSION ... don`t just say 'well it`s your opinion' like some bleeding heart liberal & leave it at that.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote