The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-05-2009, 09:27 AM

I've only ever seen one Stones fan on here like that compared to hundreds of Beatles fans who are like that.

crash_override · 06-05-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I've only ever seen one Stones fan on here like that compared to hundreds of Beatles fans who are like that.

Yeah maybe Beatle fans are a little more extremist.

S. Flavious Mercurius · 06-05-2009, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I don't mind a handful of Beatles songs.

However their fans irritate the crap out of me.

This makes no sense to me, theBeatles evolved with the times and were on the vangardt (sp?) weren't they?

Meanwhile the Stones are a laughing stock now.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-05-2009, 11:08 AM

Yeah how silly of me prefer gritty R&B to that

If I want a band who 'evolved with the times and were on the vangard' I'll listen to Can instead thanks.

crash_override · 06-05-2009, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Yeah how silly of me prefer gritty R&B to that

If I want a band who 'evolved with the times and were on the vangard' I'll listen to Can instead thanks.

I'm sorry did you say Can?

boo boo · 06-05-2009, 11:15 AM

My problem with Stones fans is that they're usually elitists of the "It's only good if it's rock n roll" varieity.

The kinda people who think any display of technical ability, a song lasting more than 4 minutes or musicians embracing any influence outside of rock n roll, country and blues is automatically pretentious.

S. Flavious Mercurius · 06-05-2009, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Yeah how silly of me prefer gritty R&B to that

If I want a band who 'evolved with the times and were on the vangard' I'll listen to Can instead thanks.

I didn't say anything about what you should prefer, I just don't think many people would agree that the Stones have evolved better then the Beatles did.

I mean it's apples and oranges sure but it is what it is

I don't want to debate tastes, I'll always win if that's the format.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-05-2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boo boo

My problem with Stones fans is that they're usually elitists of the "It's only good if it's rock n roll" varieity.

The kinda people who think any display of technical ability, a song lasting more than 4 minutes or musicians embracing any influence outside of rock n roll, country and blues is automatically pretentious.

Names, Dates, Times

Comus · 06-05-2009, 11:39 AM

I'm sorry, is this Can?

almauro · 06-05-2009, 02:54 PM

Old-school Beatles fans have always viewed the Stones as a threat. I know a lot of folks from the 60's and I always like to put them on the spot, as if I was interrogating them, and sternly ask...who do you like better? Nearly all have an emotional response favoring the Beatles, which they quickly reinforce with reasons like, "I saved scrap-books of all their pictures", "the Beatles were going to change the world", "they really believed in peace and harmony" yada yada yada. Almost as quickly as it began, Beatlemania began to wane with the release of the White Album, and by 1970 you had Altamount, Mick Jagger was in fact the biggest rock star in world, and the Beatles were finished. Pretty depressing scenario if you happened to be a Beatles fan. I think there's still a little resentment and may be even some blame placed on the Stones for the Beatles demise.

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

06-05-2009, 09:27 AM	#751 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	I've only ever seen one Stones fan on here like that compared to hundreds of Beatles fans who are like that. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

06-05-2009, 11:08 AM	#754 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Yeah how silly of me prefer gritty R&B to that If I want a band who 'evolved with the times and were on the vangard' I'll listen to Can instead thanks. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

06-05-2009, 02:54 PM	#760 (permalink)
almauro Way Out There Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 850	Old-school Beatles fans have always viewed the Stones as a threat. I know a lot of folks from the 60's and I always like to put them on the spot, as if I was interrogating them, and sternly ask...who do you like better? Nearly all have an emotional response favoring the Beatles, which they quickly reinforce with reasons like, "I saved scrap-books of all their pictures", "the Beatles were going to change the world", "they really believed in peace and harmony" yada yada yada. Almost as quickly as it began, Beatlemania began to wane with the release of the White Album, and by 1970 you had Altamount, Mick Jagger was in fact the biggest rock star in world, and the Beatles were finished. Pretty depressing scenario if you happened to be a Beatles fan. I think there's still a little resentment and may be even some blame placed on the Stones for the Beatles demise. __________________ rock n music blog Last edited by almauro; 06-05-2009 at 03:55 PM.