|
The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.
|
I point you in the direction of this thread that says everything i`d like to express here
http://www.musicbanter.com/showthread.php?t=4392 |
^^^^^^ couldn't have said it better if I tried.
|
The beatles by a long shot, the abbey road album has songs which are still musicly ahead of stuff today
|
the rolling stones, they were pure rock way back in the begining of the sixties while the beatles were still singing their lollipop music for the girlies ( "i wanna hold your hand, i wanna hold your hand..."....please....)
|
The Beatles for definate I say. The musical geneius involved in revolver, abbey road and sgt.peppers is just amazing. Well thats what I think anyway...
|
Stones. I was raised on 'em.
|
the beatles- i adore them. to those say they lack diversity may i point out the fact that their early career was the complete antithesis to their latter career. their experimentation with brass, time pieces and other sound effects opened up new avenues for other bands in the late 70s. but hey sure a lot of you disagree.
|
Quote:
anyway, i like beatles better, their music ranges so much, from happy love ballads to psycadelia to crazy distortion blues songs. i like rollin stones but alotta their songs sound the same |
I think it`s rather unfair to say the Beatles never evolved.
It just so happens that I think what they evolved into was **** |
still, beats doing the same thing over and over again for 40+ years doesnt it. and dont even mention beggars banquet because the stones and psychedelia just does not blend well.
|
They didn`t do psychadelia on Beggars Banquet
|
my ears must decieve me because it sounds like an experimentation with psychedelics here.
|
You must be thinking of Satanic Majesties & Flowers
Both of which are crap Beggars Banquet is full on R&B , in the old sense of the word. |
I'm leaning towards The Beatles. Man, they are one of the first bands I got into. I love 'em!
|
Quote:
|
Well come on
How many psychadelia album covers have a picture of a dirty , graffiti covered public toilet |
yes yes fair point. in that case the album i was listening to (their satanic majesties request) is poo compared to the magical mystery tour. (just my opinion.)
|
Satanic Majesties Request is poo compared to about 90% of anything the Stones did *
* If you ignore everything after Undercover Of The Night |
nope led zeppelin
|
Quote:
|
just that their better than both of them combined
|
no their not. they are worse than the beatles.
|
In my opinion, Bonham's a better drummer than Ringo. But I digress...
|
well i dont like either, but if i had to choose, i would pick the beatles, which is besides the point that this is a Stones/Beatles thread
|
Quote:
Apart from Meg White maybe |
why vote? the beetles we're always stoned
|
...heh heh...Meg White gets tons of money for doing the same beat over and over again in every song...I'm still goin' with the Beatles.
|
Uh huh, and she still makes better music than you. Thats gotta suck.
|
yep meg white cant play drums i play drums and its fun but meg white plays one drumbeat
|
Quote:
|
wow what a screwed up band
|
Not really. The songwriting and creativeness in the music really overpowers how good or bad Meg's chops are. Jack White is a great musician and he has some experiencing in drumming (being his first instrument before guitar). I believe what ever they decide to do as a band is right for the kind of music they are doing.
|
Wow I`ve started a drumming debate
Which is kind of ironic really becuase I don`t give a flying **** about drummers or musos. |
Quote:
|
i definetly like the stones better. the beatles were just annoying, in my opinion of course.
|
I hate both of them.
|
Ahh! But Why?!
|
Quote:
|
Yeah, now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go cry in my scarf.
Still Beatles. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:27 AM. |
© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.