10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (house, indie)

sleepy jack · 04-12-2008, 11:12 PM

Did you guys ever notice how you can make any animal a mythical creature if you add wings to it? Take a horse, add wings and BAM its Pegasus. Or a Griffin, its just a lion with wings. That's true innovation right there.

ProggyMan · 04-12-2008, 11:12 PM

This should be a thread. You wanna' do it or should I?

polka_tulk · 04-13-2008, 12:39 AM

all i can say is you wouldn't catch a tiger doing this...

jacklovezhimself · 04-13-2008, 01:24 AM

All these things aside, the Beatles were the better band. When I say better I don't mean who "looked cooler" or "who had a better wife" or "who wrote about cooler things" because all that is total bull****. The Beatles were way more successful, bottom line, and (earmuffs mr. hatemonger) maybe JUST MAYBE it was because people liked them better.

But seriously guys, the Stones were pretty sweet but you can never say that a certain band is better because of a bunch of stupid **** because in the end the thing that ACTUALLY MATTERS is the music.

Piss Me Off · 04-13-2008, 02:48 AM

That and Jagger puts bees on his penis (or so i've heard.)

Rainard Jalen · 04-13-2008, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacklovezhimself

All these things aside, the Beatles were the better band. When I say better I don't mean who "looked cooler" or "who had a better wife" or "who wrote about cooler things" because all that is total bull****. The Beatles were way more successful, bottom line, and (earmuffs mr. hatemonger) maybe JUST MAYBE it was because people liked them better.

But seriously guys, the Stones were pretty sweet but you can never say that a certain band is better because of a bunch of stupid **** because in the end the thing that ACTUALLY MATTERS is the music.

Ugh, again - does tongue in cheek mean anything to ya?

jacklovezhimself · 04-13-2008, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

Ugh, again - does tongue in cheek mean anything to ya?

I guess but this forum is built on tongue and cheek comments so it's a little easy to be ignorant towards them.

Rainard Jalen · 04-14-2008, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacklovezhimself

I guess but this forum is built on tongue and cheek comments so it's a little easy to be ignorant towards them.

If the forum is built on tongue and cheek comments, then surely that'd suggest NOT much chance of failing to recognize them?

At any rate, though it's not relevant to this thread, I agree as a general principle with your point that in evaluating bands the only important thing in the end is the music. One thing that pisses me off a lot about many British indie kids that I've spoken to is that they're OBSESSED with image to the point that it has clearly become more important to them than the music itself.

I got in a debate not so long ago with some guy who was the frontman of some really dull North London band - my claim was that the Arctic Monkeys are a better and more talented band than the Libertines ever were. The guy completely freaked out. But when he was trying to construct an argument over why I was so very heinously wrong, the result was fascinating: all he seemed ultimately to be able to come up with was that the Libs had a WAY better image than AMs, were much cooler, and spurned off a whole movement and legion of imitators - that people know all the names of the band members and dress up as Pete Doherty. So therefore, they were clearly the better band and any claim to the contrary was blasphemous.

How can somebody misguide themselves so far that they begin to evaluate music based on image of the songwriters?

sleepy jack · 04-14-2008, 06:08 AM

Does anyone ever wonder how many people would even care about the Libertines/Babyshambles etc if Doherty wasn't some media whore?

boo boo · 04-14-2008, 07:25 AM

My estimates are.......... No one.

04-13-2008, 12:39 AM	#173 (permalink)
polka_tulk Groupie Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 25	all i can say is you wouldn't catch a tiger doing this... __________________ The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!

04-13-2008, 01:24 AM	#174 (permalink)
jacklovezhimself five years Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,248	All these things aside, the Beatles were the better band. When I say better I don't mean who "looked cooler" or "who had a better wife" or "who wrote about cooler things" because all that is total bull**. The Beatles were way more successful, bottom line, and (earmuffs mr. hatemonger) maybe JUST MAYBE it was because people liked them better. But seriously guys, the Stones were pretty sweet but you can never say that a certain band is better because of a bunch of stupid ** because in the end the thing that ACTUALLY MATTERS is the music. __________________

04-13-2008, 02:48 AM	#175 (permalink)
Piss Me Off Moodswings n' Roundabouts Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: At the corner of Dude and Catastrophe Posts: 4,512	That and Jagger puts bees on his penis (or so i've heard.) __________________ Last FM Rate Yr Music Muxtape

04-12-2008, 11:12 PM	#172 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	This should be a thread. You wanna' do it or should I?