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 .

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 incorrect, except that Mick Jagger is the greatest conman of all time, in my opinion he is second only to Gary Glitter, but still none of the Beatles can compare to him thankfully. In fact, The Beatles were the most marketable looking rock band of their era. 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 A rock band. They are the prototype of an average rock band that played the blues, after dumping their covers and just got lucky, they are way more charismatic and cooler than the Hollies. The longevity is an important factor too and it also pulls in millions of $ every year, but still I can't say that they are better. #1 Beatles, and very close #2 Stones, that's how I see it.

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

If you can't deal with the fact that there are 6+ billion people in the world and none of them think exactly the same that's not my problem. Just deal with it yourself or make actual conversation. This isn't a court and I'm not some poet or prophet that needs everything I say to be analytically critiqued.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by eraser.time206

If you can't deal with the fact that there are 6+ billion people in the world and none of them think exactly the same that's not my problem. Just deal with it yourself or make actual conversation. This isn't a court and I'm not some poet or prophet that needs everything I say to be analytically critiqued.

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.