View Full Version : Beatles Vs. Stones
Rob The Badger
07 Jan 2004, 19:35
The Rolling Stones are overrated.
Although I am tempted to agree with you Rob, they have produced some good work. Especially when you consider it from the time it was written rather than comparing it to the music that has followed it and the bands of today.
Rob The Badger
07 Jan 2004, 20:40
Although I am tempted to agree with you Rob, they have produced some good work. Especially when you consider it from the time it was written rather than comparing it to the music that has followed it and the bands of today.
Quite, they did produce some excellent stuff, but some people put them on par with The Beatles and to be honest, I don't buy that.
The Rolling Stones are overrated.
From your set perhaps Rob, but they are in my opinion quite simply the greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band in the world bar none... out to have fun, technically Keith and Ronnie are two of the best Guitarists in the world and they have provided much more influence to the Rock World than any other band.
The Beatles were simply the greatest "pop" band in the world, who sadly disappeared up their own hype. that's not to say that they didn't provide a similar influence on the pop world though.... the difference being pop is oly one letter away from pap :D
Rob The Badger
10 Jan 2004, 11:06
pop is oly one letter away from pap :D
That's just wrong. There wouldn't have been a Rolling Stones without The Beatles.
pop is oly one letter away from pap :D
That's just wrong. There wouldn't have been a Rolling Stones without The Beatles.
Errr.... nooooo sorry to say you're wrong there....
While the Beatles were playing in Germany, the Stones were schelping their music and learning their skills round the pubs and clubs of West London.
End of the day comparing The Stones with The Beatles is like comparing Apples and Oranges, their both fruit but different kinds of fruit each with their own positives.... personally I prefer the Bitter-sweet Apples of the Stones to the sickly sweet Oranges of The Beatles, but each toi their own :D
Rob The Badger
11 Jan 2004, 01:04
Elenor Rigby was better and more original than everything the Stones ever released. But I stand by the fact that Sticky Fingers is an incredible record. . .maybe I'm biased 'cause Warhol did the artwork. . .anyway, as you picked up on, it's all subjective anyway.
Elenor Rigby was better and more original than everything the Stones ever released. But I stand by the fact that Sticky Fingers is an incredible record. . .maybe I'm biased 'cause Warhol did the artwork. . .anyway, as you picked up on, it's all subjective anyway.
It's just that my subjectiveness is more correct than yours Rob that's all :D
Sympathy For The Devil - far more original and years and years ahead of it's time :p
Rob The Badger
11 Jan 2004, 20:19
Looks like I'm going to have to play the Ace doesn't it. . .
Ladies and gentleman, I give you. . .
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000002UAU.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
I'll see your Ace and riase you..............
http://www.keno.org/stones_images/exile.gif
:D
Rob The Badger
12 Jan 2004, 20:04
I'll see your Ace and riase you..............
http://www.keno.org/stones_images/exile.gif
:D
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000026B01.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000002UAR.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
http://images-eu.amazon.com/images/P/B000002UAO.02.LZZZZZZZ.jpg7
Check mate.
The Flying Mouse
12 Jan 2004, 20:19
This was going off topic on The Meat's 2003 thread.
Beatles Vs. Stones debate split to new thread and poll added.
Carry on folks :mrgreen:
This was going off topic on The Meat's 2003 thread.
Beatles Vs. Stones debate split to new thread and poll added.
Carry on folks :mrgreen:
Thanks!
Neck and Neck I see..... But then that's the two main protaganists of the off topicness who've voted probably :D
I would ahve to vote stones because
(and I am getting ready to hide before saying this!)
I do not like the Beatles!!
Dont' worry Chris...... Rob The Beatley Badger is 'armless ;)
(and if he gets really nasty we could always gas him :evil: :lol: :evil: )
I am not worried about anyones reaction.
I once said that on liverpool Docks outside the Beatle's Museum. An nothing happened.
Although Mr. and Mrs. Mouse seemed to start moving away from me very very quickly just in case!!!!!
Rob The Badger
12 Jan 2004, 21:15
I do not like the Beatles!!
*slap*
The Flying Mouse
12 Jan 2004, 21:17
:twisted: Yeah, but Chris, it did cost me a pound to find out the exact location of the original Cavern club for you :lol:
And I could tell how impressed you were with that wall :lmao:
lol if Chris' impression on the wall is waht I think it is then I'll gladly give you that pound back out of my own pocket!!! :D
:twisted: Yeah, but Chris, it did cost me a pound to find out the exact location of the original Cavern club for you :lol:
And I could tell how impressed you were with that wall :lmao:
It was a very good wall. lot of very nice pointing and laying skills involved!!!
Shame some silly beggar had writtena load of names all over it!
Just out of interest. Are the Stones on that wall??
The Flying Mouse
12 Jan 2004, 21:25
:twisted: No Andy.He didn't do an Ozzy at the Alamo impression :lol:
The wall is a wall (obviously) that has the name of a band/artist who has played the Cavern on every brick.
It's very, erm, interesting :roll:
evil nickname
12 Jan 2004, 22:14
The Beatles may be ground-breaking, and what not, but 95% of their stuff do absolutely nothing for me.
I'm not much of a Stones fan, but I'd take them over the Beatles any day.
Rob The Badger
12 Jan 2004, 22:24
You're all insane. INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE I TELLZ YA!
I've got to side w/ Rob here, the Beatles were much more influential, IMO. Maybe this is just my American perspective, but here that is a given.
T
sherrie87
12 Jan 2004, 23:46
Yes the Beatles may have been more influential, but the fact is that they are much more of a "pop" band. If you are looking for "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band", look no further than Mick and the boys. I own a lot of Beatles records, but I actually listen to my Stones records, while most of my Beatles stuff sits untouched.
Sherrie
Well said Sherrie... and this whole conversation started from the nominations for the lifetime achievement award for contributions to never stopping rocking...... The Beatles stopped (at their peak it must be added), the Stones only will when they're all dead and whilst they may not always cut it when recording, live they are still awesome! :D
Well I do have a photograph of the Fab 4 together, never been able to work when it was taken though, maybe someone on here could HELP me if I e mail it to them, and I also appeared as an extra at the Scala theatre for the filming of Hard Days Night.
I digress.... :oops: Love the Beatles when I was younger, still like them now, but my music tastes progressed on hearing Poison Ivy by the Rolling Stones Oh so many years ago has to be The Rolling Stones, I rocked at Twickers
Wild_Honey
13 Jan 2004, 14:14
"Those in the cheaper seats clap your hands, the rest of you rattle your jewellery." ... :!: BEATLES FOR EVER :!:
Rob The Badger
13 Jan 2004, 18:07
Well said Sherrie... and this whole conversation started from the nominations for the lifetime achievement award for contributions to never stopping rocking...... The Beatles stopped (at their peak it must be added), the Stones only will when they're all dead and whilst they may not always cut it when recording, live they are still awesome! :D
The Beatles stopped at their peak, The Stones went on to release all that pap after they jumped the shark.
Think that people will hang me now....
I think that both groups are horrible!!!
Okay... both made music and some of the songs are covered by a lot of artists but still.... my god... how terrible they are.
The rolling stones think they are a kind of a god, and the people found the beatles a kind of a god.
Okay, the beatles are almost dead, so now the rolling stones. 8)
Rob The Badger
13 Jan 2004, 21:10
Think that people will hang me now....
I think that both groups are horrible!!!
Okay... both made music and some of the songs are covered by a lot of artists but still.... my god... how terrible they are.
The rolling stones think they are a kind of a god, and the people found the beatles a kind of a god.
Okay, the beatles are almost dead, so now the rolling stones. 8)
8O . . .
Each to his own.
Tim, I'm with you.
Both groups are very pi**!!!!! :wink:
i don't and have never liked the Beatles, their music just doesn't appeal to me.
I don't like the Stones either.........sorry folks :roll:
Bren
My votes went to the stones.
I like the Stones more,
and really I just started getting into the Beatles. More SO Lennon.
But ya Stones are a great Rock N Roll Band. Are they overrated, hmm? I am not really sure how to answer that?
Skeleton
14 Jan 2004, 11:30
In my opinion Beatles paved the way to the others. But when you looking Stones conserts itīs amazing who old men like Jagger and Richards still can tour around the world. :bunny:
Renegade Angel
14 Jan 2004, 15:22
Im more of a Who fan myself although I love the Beatles and the Stones aswell.
The Beatles had songwritters who made simple lyrics mean so much and the later albums from Rubber Soul / Revolver onwards are by far the better albums.
The Stones were and still are a great rock n' roll band who had the bad boy image to match.
Wild Horses and Gimmie Shelter are great tracks - whats everyones fave songs by the two bands
vBulletin® v3.8.10, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.