10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Rjinn · 10-08-2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluffley

YOUR SMACK A## DOESN'T KNOW SH## FROM APPLE BUTTER FOR SURE.

Rock N' Roll Clown · 10-08-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Well, you were one Stones fan along with my favourite ice-cream, that thought their honour was worth protecting.

Also, fixed up the second part for you and glad to see that you came to your senses at the end.

You killed me

Although I am not agree at all, your edit of my post was sooo damn funny.

Burning Down · 10-08-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock N' Roll Clown

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.

I like the Beatles AND The Stones, but The Who outranks them both in my book. Mostly because I heard their music first.

Unknown Soldier · 10-08-2012, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock N' Roll Clown

You killed me

Although I am not agree at all, your edit of my post was sooo damn funny.

Well this thread is like a comedy club.

Rjinn · 10-08-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

I like the Beatles AND The Stones, but The Who outranks them both in my book. Mostly because I heard their music first.

Same as me. I got into The Who first and didn't really pay attention to Beatles or Rolling Stones much. They were both "eh." But I got over The Who pretty fast and went onto Stones.

Neapolitan · 10-08-2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

I like the Beatles AND The Stones, but The Who outranks them both in my book. Mostly because I heard their music first.

I went through a Who phase but I really don't care for them much anymore. I guess it started after watching a Pete Townshend interveiw. Anyway if I had to sum up those bands in a word or phrase:

The Beatles = Infatuation
The Who = Megalomania
The Rolling Stones = The bee's knees, the cat's pajamas, the greatest thing since sliced bread, the coolest band in Rock and Roll history.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluffley

I WISH I COULD FIND THE POST OF THAT IDIOT WHO SAID THAT THE BEATLES WERE THE WORST BAND THAT EVER BECAME FAMOUS !

I do too, I want to shake his hand and congratulate him.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock N' Roll Clown

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 ****.

My friend who a was a record store owner was telling me the difference between a Beatle fans and a Stones fans. One of the thing he said was that he never came across a used Stones record that was in good condition, they (LPs) were always worn out and scatched up. He said either the Stones fans didn't know how to take care of their records or played the **** out of them. He also said he saw many Beatles LPs and it wasn't unusal that they were in mint or near mint condish.

~~Fabio~~ · 10-09-2012, 09:42 AM

Hi.
I saw a documentary/movie on Lemmy Kilminister some time ago.
He said he was an huge Beatles fan and the interviewer was very surprised because he would bet that a tough guy like Lemmy would have surely been a Stones fan.
Lemmy answered: Despite the look, the Beatles were true rockers that came from the working class and played in some of the most dangeorus clubs in Europe, while the Stones were middle class "sissies" - he excactly used the word sissies - who pretend to be tough guys from the workin class but were not.
Not mine words, Lemmy words.

Burning Down · 10-09-2012, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I went through a Who phase but I really don't care for them much anymore. I guess it started after watching a Pete Townshend interveiw. Anyway if I had to sum up those bands in a word or phrase:

The Beatles = Infatuation
The Who = Megalomania
The Rolling Stones = The bee's knees, the cat's pajamas, the greatest thing since sliced bread, the coolest band in Rock and Roll history.

I do too, I want to shake his hand and congratulate him.

My friend who a was a record store owner was telling me the difference between a Beatle fans and a Stones fans. One of the thing he said was that he never came across a used Stones record that was in good condition, they (LPs) were always worn out and scatched up. He said either the Stones fans didn't know how to take care of their records or played the **** out of them. He also said he saw many Beatles LPs and it wasn't unusal that they were in mint or near mint condish.

People are allowed to like The Beatles, it's not a crime to love their music and their story. If the Beatles were as much of a fad as you are letting on, their music wouldn't have stood the test of time and would not be popular today.

Rock N' Roll Clown · 10-09-2012, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Burning Down

I like the Beatles AND The Stones, but The Who outranks them both in my book. Mostly because I heard their music first.

Yeah, when a band or an artist becomes one of your first favorites, they stick and stay there very long. I am not a metalhead, but Metallica are in my Top 3 artists of all time, because they opened my eyes for the good music and I simply love them. But The Who just can't be as great as the Stones or the Beatles. They are the third greatest band of the 60s, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

The Rolling Stones = The bee's knees, the cat's pajamas, the greatest thing since sliced bread, the coolest band in Rock and Roll history.

I do too, I want to shake his hand and congratulate him.

I am absolutely agree about the Stones, but why is that hate towards The Beatles?

Unknown Soldier · 10-09-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rock N' Roll Clown

Yeah, when a band or an artist becomes one of your first favorites, they stick and stay there very long. I am not a metalhead, but Metallica are in my Top 3 artists of all time, because they opened my eyes for the good music and I simply love them. But The Who just can't be as great as the Stones or the Beatles. They are the third greatest band of the 60s, though.

That's a very limited view, as you just picked probably the three biggest and said they're the best.

10-09-2012, 09:42 AM	#527 (permalink)
~~Fabio~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Napoli, Italy Posts: 47	Hi. I saw a documentary/movie on Lemmy Kilminister some time ago. He said he was an huge Beatles fan and the interviewer was very surprised because he would bet that a tough guy like Lemmy would have surely been a Stones fan. Lemmy answered: Despite the look, the Beatles were true rockers that came from the working class and played in some of the most dangeorus clubs in Europe, while the Stones were middle class "sissies" - he excactly used the word sissies - who pretend to be tough guys from the workin class but were not. Not mine words, Lemmy words.