The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles

crash_override · 06-14-2009, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neapolitan

I think The Beatles would walk away with it if the Rolling Sotnes weren't given a billion point lead, for some weird reason. I wonder if the real score is The Beatles 58 The Rolling Stones 50??

If you took the time to count all the posts in the entire thread then I must first say you're very weird. However, if that is just an estimate, then I can laugh it off. I think it's hands down Beatles, and from everyone I've ever had this conversation with, it's no contest.

Prehaps The Rolling Stones vs. Poison would be a more sensible poll?

Swink · 06-14-2009, 05:47 AM

The Beatles early work was very well done, but they took a weird curve some time along the White Album and started doing nothing but silly pop/radio songs, while the Stones kept their original feel and somehow managed to not become boring.

Anyway, you can't really compare these two bands. The Beatles can be compared to, say, The Animals, and the Stones can be compared to bands like Yardbirds, Poison, etc.

**Janszoon** · 06-15-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swink

The Beatles early work was very well done, but they took a weird curve some time along the White Album and started doing nothing but silly pop/radio songs, while the Stones kept their original feel and somehow managed to not become boring.

Anyway, you can't really compare these two bands. The Beatles can be compared to, say, The Animals, and the Stones can be compared to bands like Yardbirds, Poison, etc.

Why on earth would you compare the Stones to Poison?

S. Flavious Mercurius · 06-15-2009, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

Why on earth would you compare the Stones to Poison?

I was going to ask the same question.

ElephantSack · 06-15-2009, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

If you took the time to count all the posts in the entire thread then I must first say you're very weird. However, if that is just an estimate, then I can laugh it off. I think it's hands down Beatles, and from everyone I've ever had this conversation with, it's no contest.

Prehaps The Rolling Stones vs. Poison would be a more sensible poll?

Cheers! And watch out for that descending Tony Awards bulk head!

Comus · 06-16-2009, 01:49 AM

The last few pages (I have 30 ppp) have been comedic gold. Anyways I've worked out a formula that relates relative intelligence to eventual band preference.

It's quite simple.

B=-(X-C-T)
and R=(X+C+T)

Where B is Love for the Beatles
R is Love for the Rolling Stones
X is intelligence
C is common sense
and T is taste
as such negative intelligence, common sense and taste leads to a large love for the beatles, and vice versa.

ElephantSack · 06-16-2009, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comus

The last few pages (I have 30 ppp) have been comedic gold. Anyways I've worked out a formula that relates relative intelligence to eventual band preference.

It's quite simple.

B=-(X-C-T)
and R=(X+C+T)

Where B is Love for the Beatles
R is Love for the Rolling Stones
X is intelligence
C is common sense
and T is taste
as such negative intelligence, common sense and taste leads to a large love for the beatles, and vice versa.

Oh my. I guess you have a thing for guys that ****ed David Bowie.

TheCunningStunt · 06-18-2009, 01:31 PM

Wow.

The Stones 99.90% of the vote..

I always thought that The Stones vs The Beatles debate was very 50/50..

Neapolitan · 06-19-2009, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crash_override

If you took the time to count all the posts in the entire thread then I must first say you're very weird. However, if that is just an estimate, then I can laugh it off. I think it's hands down Beatles and from everyone I've ever had this conversation with, it's no contest.

Prehaps The Rolling Stones vs. Poison would be a more sensible poll?

First off, you don't have to think, it is The Beatles winning this poll sans the Stones billion point lead.

I only siad what I said in jest because of post like this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

Wow.
The Stones 99.90% of the vote..
I always thought that The Stones vs The Beatles debate was very 50/50..

Crash

So I don't know if you are going to laugh or cry or whatever when I tell you this but I didn't have to count the votes, and it's not an estimate. When I wrote that post it was The Beatles 1,000,058 to The Rolling Stones 1,000,000,050. A little math and it's The Beatles 58 to Rolling Stones 50. Looking at it now its The Beatles 1,000,061 to the Rolling Stones 1,000,000,052. It doesn't take a rocket scienctist to know that it's The Beatle 61 & The Rolling Stones 52.

Irregardless of the poll numbers, if you are a Beatle fan I hate to break it to you but the Rolling Stones are much better!

Seltzer · 06-20-2009, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheCunningStunt

Wow.

The Stones 99.90% of the vote..

I always thought that The Stones vs The Beatles debate was very 50/50..

Depends on whether divine (mod) intervention is involved.

And Neapolitan, 'irregardless' is a cringe-worthy word.

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

06-14-2009, 05:47 AM	#792 (permalink)
Swink Groupie Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 38	The Beatles early work was very well done, but they took a weird curve some time along the White Album and started doing nothing but silly pop/radio songs, while the Stones kept their original feel and somehow managed to not become boring. Anyway, you can't really compare these two bands. The Beatles can be compared to, say, The Animals, and the Stones can be compared to bands like Yardbirds, Poison, etc.

06-18-2009, 01:31 PM	#798 (permalink)
TheCunningStunt love will tear you apart Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Manchester, UK. Posts: 5,107	Wow. The Stones 99.90% of the vote.. I always thought that The Stones vs The Beatles debate was very 50/50..