The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

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

Closed Thread
Page 73 of 85 « First 23637172 73 747583 Last »
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-27-2009, 01:55 PM   #721 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
They may have faded eventually but they had a longer run of good music than the Beatles.
I have a feeling after that comment the Beatles fanboys may divert their attention away from me a little while
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 01:58 PM   #722 (permalink)
Seemingly Silenced
 
crash_override's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 2,312
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
They may have faded eventually but they had a longer run of good music than the Beatles.
Why did you have to say that Janszoon? I normally agree with everything you say. This is an exception.
crash_override is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 02:49 PM   #723 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default
of course The Beatles had a shorter time together as a band then the Stones, even The Who, and The Kinks, but everything The Beatles was really good and they're still a great band regardless how long they stayed together.
Neapolitan is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:45 PM   #724 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default
The Beatles were good from 1963 up until their break up.

The Stones were good from 1965 until 1972.

So nah, they both had an equally long run as far as quality is concerned. And The Beatles at least knew when to quit.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:47 PM   #725 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
The Stones were good from 1965 until 1972.


The Stones were good from 1965 until 1978
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:48 PM   #726 (permalink)
Dr. Prunk
 
boo boo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
Default
I just don't like the direction they took with Exile. To quote Ian Stewart, they pretty much turned into a poor man's Status Quo.

Also if you count John, Paul and Georges solo stuff that gives The Beatles at least 3 more years.
__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowquill View Post
I only listen to Santana when I feel like being annoyed.
I only listen to you talk when I want to hear Emo performed acapella.
boo boo is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:50 PM   #727 (permalink)
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
Default
The Stones put out some fantastic singles in the 70s. Even if you don't rate their albums I don't see how anyone can dispute that.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:55 PM   #728 (permalink)
Seemingly Silenced
 
crash_override's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 2,312
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
The Beatles were good from 1963 up until their break up.

The Stones were good from 1965 until 1972.

So nah, they both had an equally long run as far as quality is concerned. And The Beatles at least knew when to quit.

know when you hold em'
know when to fold em'
and know when to walk away.

thats mr. kenny rodgers. i find it very true myself.
crash_override is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:59 PM   #729 (permalink)
Mate, Spawn & Die
 
Janszoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
I have a feeling after that comment the Beatles fanboys may divert their attention away from me a little while
Quote:
Originally Posted by crash_override View Post
Why did you have to say that Janszoon? I normally agree with everything you say. This is an exception.
Heh. Honestly I didn't even think it would be all that controversial of a statement. I've always understood that even Beatles fanboys don't give much respect to their output prior to Rubber Soul. That gives them four years of making good music, five if you like Let It Be. Even if one is to say that the Stones didn't start making really notable music until 1965, the same year Rubber Soul came out, the Stones still put out quality music for at least twice as long as the Beatles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boo boo View Post
the beatles at least knew when to quit.
1960?
Janszoon is offline  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:07 PM   #730 (permalink)
Seemingly Silenced
 
crash_override's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 2,312
Default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janszoon View Post
1960?
Not cool.

I personally respect all of the Beatles work. With the exception of a few bad stray turds in there, overall I like them front to back.
crash_override is offline  
Closed Thread
Page 73 of 85 « First 23637172 73 747583 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Similar Threads


Terms & Privacy - Contact Us - Music Banter - Archive - Top

© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.