10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (favorite band, album)

Piss Me Off · 04-14-2008, 07:55 AM

A few, Up The Bracket was still seen as quite an important album by some even before Doherty was a household name, but significantly less.

megajosh2 · 04-14-2008, 07:00 PM

this thread is awful+++

jacklovezhimself · 04-14-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rainard Jalen

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.

score

Urban Hat€monger ? · 04-14-2008, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megajosh2

this thread is awful+++

Of your 10 posts most of them are in here so if it is you are contributing in making it awful.

jacklovezhimself · 04-15-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Of your 10 posts most of them are in here so if it is you are contributing in making it awful.

ha. true that.

Wifey Boozer · 08-15-2008, 02:37 PM

I like both because I like to claim that I'm diverse... but I have a personal preferance for the Stones. When anyone asks me my favorite band, I tell them the Stones. Just cuz I always got the impression that they weren't bull****tin' ya. It was real. It was exciting. It was taboo at the time. You could HEAR the Stones. Cuz it was just so in your face and even obscene at times... but that significant kind of obscene done to make a point... ergo, Shattered. But Star****er was just a great laugh. Etcetc.

On the contrary... even Hitler thought what he was doing was right. The Beatles probably were the "realest" they could be, their songs reflected their personal perception of things. When The Beatles sung about trips using a lot of admiration-deserving metaphors and trippy coolness, they were singing about trips. When The Stones sung about drugs using rawness and obscenity, they were singing about drugs. And as someone on here said, LSD is different from cocaine and morphine, obviously. So, I mean, think a little bit before anyone disowns the Beatles for colourful songs as opposed to gritty ones (White Album aside, we're speaking of the Lucy in the Sky days, yes?).

I always find it impossible to put two completely different things in juxtapose and try and say what's "better". I can never make a decision like that, people have been having opinions since the beginning of time, it's all subjective, and no matter how long anyone talks it out for, that's not gonna change.

Double X · 08-15-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful ,back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with ?

Pattie Boyd beats them both.

Wifey Boozer · 08-16-2008, 09:39 AM

Pattie Boyd's who Clapton wrote the Layla album for. /obviousknowledge. Dint she also go with Keef for a while? Not to mention Joe Boyd's wife - aye? (White Bicycles - yeah? Good ****.)

dac · 08-17-2008, 08:11 PM

your reasons are absolutely ridiculous... they focus more around how the band looks and acts than the music itself, which is the only thing that matters. reason number 1 alone makes this thread ridiculous because you're stating your opinion as pure, accepted fact

its completely ok to like the stones more, many do, but if you're gonna make a thread about it then give some reasons that aren't just stated opinions on how the band looks

Wifey Boozer · 08-17-2008, 08:13 PM

It's weird that opinions even exist when people aren't stating them.

Anyhow... that's what a debate thread is about though, y'know? One person posts an opinion, then another to counteract, then people join in and you debate. It's supposed to be a constructive thread with a clever name, is all.

04-14-2008, 07:55 AM	#181 (permalink)
Piss Me Off Moodswings n' Roundabouts Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: At the corner of Dude and Catastrophe Posts: 4,512	A few, Up The Bracket was still seen as quite an important album by some even before Doherty was a household name, but significantly less. __________________ Last FM Rate Yr Music Muxtape

04-14-2008, 07:00 PM	#182 (permalink)
megajosh2 Groupie Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: location, location. Posts: 9	this thread is awful+++ __________________ [/////]

08-15-2008, 02:37 PM	#186 (permalink)
Wifey Boozer Meanie McFeany Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Troy side'ah the dirt, NY Posts: 455	I like both because I like to claim that I'm diverse... but I have a personal preferance for the Stones. When anyone asks me my favorite band, I tell them the Stones. Just cuz I always got the impression that they weren't bull**tin' ya. It was real. It was exciting. It was taboo at the time. You could HEAR the Stones. Cuz it was just so in your face and even obscene at times... but that significant kind of obscene done to make a point... ergo, Shattered. But Starer was just a great laugh. Etcetc. On the contrary... even Hitler thought what he was doing was right. The Beatles probably were the "realest" they could be, their songs reflected their personal perception of things. When The Beatles sung about trips using a lot of admiration-deserving metaphors and trippy coolness, they were singing about trips. When The Stones sung about drugs using rawness and obscenity, they were singing about drugs. And as someone on here said, LSD is different from cocaine and morphine, obviously. So, I mean, think a little bit before anyone disowns the Beatles for colourful songs as opposed to gritty ones (White Album aside, we're speaking of the Lucy in the Sky days, yes?). I always find it impossible to put two completely different things in juxtapose and try and say what's "better". I can never make a decision like that, people have been having opinions since the beginning of time, it's all subjective, and no matter how long anyone talks it out for, that's not gonna change. __________________ ... Stalin had a FANTASTIC** moustache. Formerly known as the Prime Minister of Spain. [backintheubbr]

08-16-2008, 09:39 AM	#188 (permalink)
Wifey Boozer Meanie McFeany Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Troy side'ah the dirt, NY Posts: 455	Pattie Boyd's who Clapton wrote the Layla album for. /obviousknowledge. Dint she also go with Keef for a while? Not to mention Joe Boyd's wife - aye? (White Bicycles - yeah? Good **.) __________________ ... Stalin had a FANTASTIC** moustache. Formerly known as the Prime Minister of Spain. [backintheubbr]

08-17-2008, 08:11 PM	#189 (permalink)
dac MB's Biggest Fanboy Join Date: May 2008 Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land Posts: 2,852	your reasons are absolutely ridiculous... they focus more around how the band looks and acts than the music itself, which is the only thing that matters. reason number 1 alone makes this thread ridiculous because you're stating your opinion as pure, accepted fact its completely ok to like the stones more, many do, but if you're gonna make a thread about it then give some reasons that aren't just stated opinions on how the band looks __________________

08-17-2008, 08:13 PM	#190 (permalink)
Wifey Boozer Meanie McFeany Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Troy side'ah the dirt, NY Posts: 455	It's weird that opinions even exist when people aren't stating them. Anyhow... that's what a debate thread is about though, y'know? One person posts an opinion, then another to counteract, then people join in and you debate. It's supposed to be a constructive thread with a clever name, is all. __________________ ... Stalin had a *FANTASTIC* moustache. Formerly known as the Prime Minister of Spain. [backintheubbr]