The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles (hardcore, single, fan, quote)

FireInCairo · 10-05-2008, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fyrenza

beatles

their music is able to span genres seamlessly

they were way ahead of their time

they managed to stay away from heroin

their experimental music has inspired many genres

and the stones are some SKANKY looking and acting dudes

even though i haven't read all of the posts
i'm willing to bet this isn't the first time that was said!

I know its by the wayside...but the stones had a far cooler image than the beatles ever did...and it wasnt constructed by their manager.

Zarko · 10-05-2008, 02:46 AM

Stones... Partly because I simply prefer their stuff, but when there are two bands as gold as these two, I sort of look at secondary traits, and being a great live performer is pretty high up there on the list IMO. Even though the Beatles focused more on creating studio albums, the ability to be a great live band is something different altogether and just as difficult in many aspects. There are plenty of bands where I hate their studio albums but I would willingly shell out a bit of dough to see them live simply because of the quality of their live performances.

~~ubane~~ · 10-06-2008, 09:18 PM

the Beatles are so much better because every single one of there songs are # hits and all of them are good

FireInCairo · 10-07-2008, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubane

the Beatles are so much better because every single one of there songs are # hits and all of them are good

Wow what an over exaggeration....

~~Fyrenza~~ · 10-07-2008, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireInCairo

I know its by the wayside...but the stones had a far cooler image than the beatles ever did...and it wasnt constructed by their manager.

for sure
stones were cooler

but i didn't like their music as much

in fact
according to me
they only did one good song

'under my thumb'

<-- will NEVER be a music critic

lucifer_sam · 10-07-2008, 02:39 PM

For the most part, both bands were active during the same years. The majority of great Stones albums were concentrated between 1965 & 1972, which almost mirrors the Beatles.

But vastly different sounds and images, I agree.

Double X · 10-07-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fyrenza

for sure
stones were cooler

but i didn't like their music as much

in fact
according to me
they only did one good song

'under my thumb'

<-- will NEVER be a music critic

My favorite is easily 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'...and I am probably not a hardcore fan because I love all their popular singles: Gimme Shelter, Satisfaction, Paint It Black, etc. They a had a bunch.

~~Fyrenza~~ · 10-07-2008, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double X

My favorite is easily 'You Can't Always Get What You Want'...and I am probably not a hardcore fan because I love all their popular singles: Gimme Shelter, Satisfaction, Paint It Black, etc. They a had a bunch.

don't get me wrong

the music kicked ass and took names
and i like a LOT of it

DONE BY (practically) ANYONE ELSE

Tyler Durden · 10-07-2008, 04:44 PM

Beatles, by far.
I still like Stones a lot
but no one comes close to the beatles.

ProggyMan · 10-07-2008, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FireInCairo

I know its by the wayside...but the stones had a far cooler image than the beatles ever did...and it wasnt constructed by their manager.

lolwut

View Poll Results: Stones or Beatles
Stones	1,000,000,059	99.90%
Beatles	1,000,073	0.10%
Voters: 1001000132. You may not vote on this poll

10-07-2008, 02:39 PM	#556 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	For the most part, both bands were active during the same years. The majority of great Stones albums were concentrated between 1965 & 1972, which almost mirrors the Beatles. But vastly different sounds and images, I agree. __________________ first.am

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-05-2008, 02:46 AM	#552 (permalink)
Zarko Barely Disheveled Zombie Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Australia Posts: 1,196	Stones... Partly because I simply prefer their stuff, but when there are two bands as gold as these two, I sort of look at secondary traits, and being a great live performer is pretty high up there on the list IMO. Even though the Beatles focused more on creating studio albums, the ability to be a great live band is something different altogether and just as difficult in many aspects. There are plenty of bands where I hate their studio albums but I would willingly shell out a bit of dough to see them live simply because of the quality of their live performances.

10-06-2008, 09:18 PM	#553 (permalink)
~~ubane~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 39	the Beatles are so much better because every single one of there songs are # hits and all of them are good

10-07-2008, 04:44 PM	#559 (permalink)
Tyler Durden Music Addict Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Atlanta, Ga Posts: 204	Beatles, by far. I still like Stones a lot but no one comes close to the beatles.