The Rolling stones vs The Beatles


The Rolling stones vs The Beatles  

84 members have voted

  1. 1. The Rolling stones vs The Beatles

    • The Rolling stones
      20
    • The Beatles
      64


Recommended Posts

RollingStone: Pretty definitive:

RollingStone

586629306[/snapback]

Ah, I should've known. Well I feel good, my taste in music is pretty good (according to RollingStone, at least :rolleyes: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's funny because I don't know where you got that list from, but I was just talking to a bunch of people earlier today about how my favorite whole album is definitely Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. I don't really even have a favorite song, but my favorite album is definitely this one.

586629274[/snapback]

RollingStone: Pretty definitive:

RollingStone

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how Rolling Stone list is "pretty definitive"; it's their OPINION after all...

Whether certain music is good or not is purely subjective and there's no such thing as "better" music than others. There might be some people who think Britney Spears' songs are better than The Beatles, and vice versa.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Britney Spears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the beatles are more like britney spears and avril lavigne...OVERRATED AND FAKE!

But that doesn't make them bad! IMO, The beatles are the third best band ever:

1st being Rolling stones, 2nd tool (4th queen and 5th Led zippelin). The Rolling stones are...just perfect! as simple as that!

586628428[/snapback]

are you high? The Beatles fake ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see music as something that affects people in different ways and if someone gets something from a song, an emotion or thought, then thats great.

People are too quick to judge, sure The Beatles were amazing etc..etc.. I could bore you with stats and statistics about how much they sold and how great they were, but it all comes down to personal preference, and being popular does not mean it is awesome.

Kilgore Trout is right, it is like comparing apples to oranges. The same goes for every artist, hell I'd like to compare B.B. King and Stevie Ray Vaughan but it can't be done. They both have individual merits as artists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the beatles are more like britney spears and avril lavigne...OVERRATED AND FAKE!

But that doesn't make them bad! IMO, The beatles are the third best band ever:

1st being Rolling stones, 2nd tool (4th queen and 5th Led zippelin). The Rolling stones are...just perfect! as simple as that!

586628428[/snapback]

Beatles fake? How exactly is that? You obviously don't know much about history either. No way the Stones songs are compared to those of the Beatles, they're both good, but im my opinion, no chance against the beatles...

But's your opinion so hey...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how Rolling Stone list is "pretty definitive"; it's their OPINION after all...

Whether certain music is good or not is purely subjective and there's no such thing as "better" music than others. There might be some people who think Britney Spears' songs are better than The Beatles, and vice versa.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of The Beatles, Rolling Stones and Britney Spears.

586629325[/snapback]

The reason that I said "pretty definitive" is that I have been reading Rolling Stone magazine for 25 years or more and they base these things on actual figures, this has not been thumb sucked!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rolling Stones are one of my favourite bands. Definitely choose them. I wish they came to Vancouver on this tour. :(

Overall, though, no one can beat the Beatles in popularity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really like the Rollingstone list since they picked a bunch of musicians like Bono, Bruce Springsteen, etc to make the choices and this is what they came up with. With the exception of a few, I pretty much agree with this list sans captain beefheart (weird as hell) and some of the chick music they picked because they like to be politically correct (not all female music was bad, of course I mean they gave some overriding priority based on that).

Anyway, as you can see the Beatles take the top spot...and then some!

BTW, I like Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys more than Sgt. Pepper.

Anything after Exile on Main Street by the stones is crap to me. I personally like the 64-69 singles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How are the Beatles fake?

586628439[/snapback]

The Beatles are pop and the Rolling Stones are Rock.

However, the Beatles went beyond pop with some of their later stuff so I'll vote for the Beatles. Sgt. Pepper has been identified as a album that changed the music industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Beatles are pop and the Rolling Stones are Rock.

However, the Beatles went beyond pop with some of their later stuff so I'll vote for the Beatles.  Sgt. Pepper has been identified as a album that changed the music industry.

586631297[/snapback]

Yea beatles are pop(ular) but to say they are a pop band doesn't do justice. its because of the fact the beatles experimented with different genres that make them sooo not fake. have you listened to tomorrow never knows? wow the beatles where doing chemical brothers back in the 60s!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea beatles are pop(ular) but to say they are a pop band doesn't do justice. its because of the fact the beatles experimented with different genres that make them sooo not fake. have you listened to tomorrow never knows? wow the beatles where doing chemical brothers back in the 60s!!!

586631824[/snapback]

Early Beatles were pop. I did say that they went on to change their sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel the beatles are more like britney spears and avril lavigne...OVERRATED AND FAKE!

But that doesn't make them bad! IMO, The beatles are the third best band ever:

1st being Rolling stones, 2nd tool (4th queen and 5th Led zippelin). The Rolling stones are...just perfect! as simple as that!

586628428[/snapback]

I am neither a Beatles nor a Stones fan, however comparing them to trailor trash such as Britney Spears and Avril whats her name! is insulting to bands that launched thousands of others.

The latter mentioned, lets see, Britney just dances and sings, doesnt play an instrument, doesnt I think write her music, she is just an o.k. looking chick trying to attract teenie boppers.

Avril, I think plays an instrument but is more recognised by the flipside kids, those with a little more attitude than Britney fans.

Beatles have been around 40 odd years, this Sunday if Lennon was till alive would be 65, where as George Harrison wrote some good songs for himself and also is no-longer with us.

The Stones have been around a similar number of years and also done as well.

Let me think, will Britney and Avril be selling #1 songs when they're 65? 'I dunt tink so!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact is artists have to evolve to progress in the music industry. Pop doesn't evolve as far as artists go it is just a collection of things that other artists have achieved in previous generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There really isnt any comparison. The Beatles where FAR better musicians than the stones. That's not to say I dont like the stones. They are one of my favorites, but there's just no comparison. Really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

The Beatles, time and time again. The Beatles brought rock and roll out of the early 60's into something that was more than just fun. It was emotional. The Stones capitalized on this trademark, but it was The Beatles who made the infusion and set the record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.