Tell Me :
Talk
That would be much better with the t shirt.
And Sharon Stone says... The Beatles!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-30 21:36 by BJPortugal.
Yeah but that penalizes The Stones for sticking around a long time. Look at it this way- The Stones were either as good or at least nearly as good as The Beatles in the sixties. Then one band quit and one carried on for a long time. No right or wrong answers really it just depends on how you look at it.
Why the last one?
IMUHO we have not seen enough evidence proving that hot babes still love the Stones... Show us more more more... besides... "hot babe evidence" is a more convincing than nerds writing words trying to convince anyone who is better.
On some level, don't they deserve to be penalized?
OK, to indulge you further, let's see each band under 'worst case scenario'....let's compare 'worst' albums by each act.
For the Beatles, I dunno, "Beatles for Sale"?
For the Stones, "Dirty Work".
case is sadly closed.
I'm sold, you just changed my vote!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 00:07 by 2000 LYFH.
Yeah but Dirty Work was released long after The Stones were in their prime so again it's kind of penalizing The Stones for sticking around. I'm sure if The Beatles stuck around sooner or later they would have released an album as bad as albums like Dirty Work, It's Hard and The Final Cut but since they quit we will never know.
Time to start a new thread - "Up to 1970 who was a better band".
Final Cut bad?
Again, would be much better without the stones top.
Ok
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 00:18 by Max'sKansasCity.
What about the stones bottom?
Yes, I actually like Final Cut as well. "Up to 1970 who was a better band"...is the only question that should be asked (actually, strike that...that shouldn't even be asked, but we're here, so...)
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: August 30, 2012 16:49
Scorcese, the Wachowskis and David Chase say the Stones.
Robert Stigwood says NOT!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-30 23:20 by drbryant.
Robert Stigwood says NOT!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-30 23:20 by drbryant.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 30, 2012 16:58
Quote
drbryant
Alicia says the Stones.
That would be much better with the t shirt.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
BJPortugal
()
Date: August 30, 2012 21:25
And Sharon Stone says... The Beatles!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-30 21:36 by BJPortugal.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: August 30, 2012 22:47
They both put out tons of great music but to me The Stones were better. The whole Beatlemania thing was a giant wave that the Beatles rode until the end. By 1966 they were so popular they could have released any halfway decent song and it would have zoomed to the top of the charts.
Let It Be (the album) was very weak imo for a Beatles album but since it was recorded before Abbey Road?, I guess you can argue they finished on a high note.
Let It Be (the album) was very weak imo for a Beatles album but since it was recorded before Abbey Road?, I guess you can argue they finished on a high note.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 30, 2012 22:56
One metric to look at, is how many good songs they released, on average, per year.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:02
Quote
treaclefingers
One metric to look at, is how many good songs they released, on average, per year.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
Yeah but that penalizes The Stones for sticking around a long time. Look at it this way- The Stones were either as good or at least nearly as good as The Beatles in the sixties. Then one band quit and one carried on for a long time. No right or wrong answers really it just depends on how you look at it.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
floodonthepage
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:06
For me, The Beatles are a vocal pop group with rock and roll leanings. The Rolling Stones are a blues band with rock and roll leanings. I'll take the blues over the pop any day.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:15
Christina says the Stones!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:16
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
pinkfloydthebarber
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:20
can't really compare the two (because they were different) but if realism is what you're looking for, then yes, the stones win
stones were gritty, raw and blues; beatles won moms over with their nice pop, although their pop got more sophisticated
60s: beatles put their smiling faces on album covers, stones put pictures of toilets on album covers and still sold millions
in that period (Beggars Banquet, LIB etc) the stones wrote @#$%& great blues and country-influenced rock, while The Beatles mainly did sometimes boring, drippy, trippy,"experimental", "psychedelic" stuff that can be pretty tough to sit through
the stones were way better live
the 70s: stones: sticky fingers stones exile ..etc
the 70's beatles: Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting and Ringo Starr solo albums
'nuff said
stones were gritty, raw and blues; beatles won moms over with their nice pop, although their pop got more sophisticated
60s: beatles put their smiling faces on album covers, stones put pictures of toilets on album covers and still sold millions
in that period (Beggars Banquet, LIB etc) the stones wrote @#$%& great blues and country-influenced rock, while The Beatles mainly did sometimes boring, drippy, trippy,"experimental", "psychedelic" stuff that can be pretty tough to sit through
the stones were way better live
the 70s: stones: sticky fingers stones exile ..etc
the 70's beatles: Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting and Ringo Starr solo albums
'nuff said
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:24
Quote
drbryant
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?
Why the last one?
IMUHO we have not seen enough evidence proving that hot babes still love the Stones... Show us more more more... besides... "hot babe evidence" is a more convincing than nerds writing words trying to convince anyone who is better.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:29
Quote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingers
One metric to look at, is how many good songs they released, on average, per year.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
Yeah but that penalizes The Stones for sticking around a long time. Look at it this way- The Stones were either as good or at least nearly as good as The Beatles in the sixties. Then one band quit and one carried on for a long time. No right or wrong answers really it just depends on how you look at it.
On some level, don't they deserve to be penalized?
OK, to indulge you further, let's see each band under 'worst case scenario'....let's compare 'worst' albums by each act.
For the Beatles, I dunno, "Beatles for Sale"?
For the Stones, "Dirty Work".
case is sadly closed.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 30, 2012 23:33
Quote
Max'sKansasCityQuote
drbryant
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?
Why the last one?
IMUHO we have not seen enough evidence proving that hot babes still love the Stones... Show us more more more... besides... "hot babe evidence" is a more convincing than nerds writing words trying to convince anyone who is better.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:00
I'm convinced the Stone's tongue logo looks way better that any Beatles schwag does when worn properly.
The Beatles had alot more practice at being bad. They also had George Martin instead of Jimmy Miller so hard to compare the records as just products of the band.
After recently watching the Beatles rooftop concert I'm pretty sure they would be ripping the Stones up pretty badly if they were still around and playing together. But since their not, the Stones will have to write the history books. peace
The Beatles had alot more practice at being bad. They also had George Martin instead of Jimmy Miller so hard to compare the records as just products of the band.
After recently watching the Beatles rooftop concert I'm pretty sure they would be ripping the Stones up pretty badly if they were still around and playing together. But since their not, the Stones will have to write the history books. peace
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:06
Quote
drbryant
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?
I'm sold, you just changed my vote!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 00:07 by 2000 LYFH.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
FrankM
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:07
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingers
One metric to look at, is how many good songs they released, on average, per year.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
Yeah but that penalizes The Stones for sticking around a long time. Look at it this way- The Stones were either as good or at least nearly as good as The Beatles in the sixties. Then one band quit and one carried on for a long time. No right or wrong answers really it just depends on how you look at it.
On some level, don't they deserve to be penalized?
OK, to indulge you further, let's see each band under 'worst case scenario'....let's compare 'worst' albums by each act.
For the Beatles, I dunno, "Beatles for Sale"?
For the Stones, "Dirty Work".
case is sadly closed.
Yeah but Dirty Work was released long after The Stones were in their prime so again it's kind of penalizing The Stones for sticking around. I'm sure if The Beatles stuck around sooner or later they would have released an album as bad as albums like Dirty Work, It's Hard and The Final Cut but since they quit we will never know.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:11
Quote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingersQuote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingers
One metric to look at, is how many good songs they released, on average, per year.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
Yeah but that penalizes The Stones for sticking around a long time. Look at it this way- The Stones were either as good or at least nearly as good as The Beatles in the sixties. Then one band quit and one carried on for a long time. No right or wrong answers really it just depends on how you look at it.
On some level, don't they deserve to be penalized?
OK, to indulge you further, let's see each band under 'worst case scenario'....let's compare 'worst' albums by each act.
For the Beatles, I dunno, "Beatles for Sale"?
For the Stones, "Dirty Work".
case is sadly closed.
Yeah but Dirty Work was released long after The Stones were in their prime so again it's kind of penalizing The Stones for sticking around. I'm sure if The Beatles stuck around sooner or later they would have released an album as bad as albums like Dirty Work, It's Hard and The Final Cut but since they quit we will never know.
Time to start a new thread - "Up to 1970 who was a better band".
Final Cut bad?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:14
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
drbryant
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?
I'm sold, you just changed my vote!
Again, would be much better without the stones top.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:16
Quote
His Majesty
Again, would be much better without the stones top.
Ok
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 00:18 by Max'sKansasCity.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
His Majesty
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:20
I hate that tongue logo.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:21
but of course.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
NICOS
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:22
I love to wash it away.............
__________________________
__________________________
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Max'sKansasCity
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:23
Quote
NICOS
I love to wash it away.............
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
2000 LYFH
()
Date: August 31, 2012 00:26
Quote
His MajestyQuote
2000 LYFHQuote
drbryant
This is the last one - but this really ends the argument, right?
I'm sold, you just changed my vote!
Again, would be much better without the stones top.
What about the stones bottom?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
BJPortugal
()
Date: August 31, 2012 01:16
Let's continue...
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
drbryant
()
Date: August 31, 2012 01:22
That's cheating. You can't include ADVERTISEMENTS, for goodness' sake. You can only include hot babes who actually CHOOSE to show their allegiance to the Beatles. Like the Hoff.
"BEATLES forever, Rolling Stones NEVER!!!"
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 01:26 by drbryant.
"BEATLES forever, Rolling Stones NEVER!!!"
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-31 01:26 by drbryant.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Heart for Stones
()
Date: August 31, 2012 01:52
Better or "worse" - Beatles was great, but getting "HITT" by Stones on Radio Luxembourg at nighttime late '63 it made clear - Rolling Stones.
No way back.
Of course some girls friends was lost, but not the Best once.
My favorite girl changed and we had a good time at the second show in Oslo '65.
Never regret that choice, even if my daughter did rebel and for a period was a Beatle fan and finally there is no more live shows for me - 1.500$ !!!!!!!!!!!!
All the Best!
No way back.
Of course some girls friends was lost, but not the Best once.
My favorite girl changed and we had a good time at the second show in Oslo '65.
Never regret that choice, even if my daughter did rebel and for a period was a Beatle fan and finally there is no more live shows for me - 1.500$ !!!!!!!!!!!!
All the Best!
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: August 31, 2012 02:20
Quote
2000 LYFHQuote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingersQuote
FrankMQuote
treaclefingers
One metric to look at, is how many good songs they released, on average, per year.
The Beatles were in existence 8 years. The Rolling Stones 50 years.
This can't end well for Stones fanatics.
Yeah but that penalizes The Stones for sticking around a long time. Look at it this way- The Stones were either as good or at least nearly as good as The Beatles in the sixties. Then one band quit and one carried on for a long time. No right or wrong answers really it just depends on how you look at it.
On some level, don't they deserve to be penalized?
OK, to indulge you further, let's see each band under 'worst case scenario'....let's compare 'worst' albums by each act.
For the Beatles, I dunno, "Beatles for Sale"?
For the Stones, "Dirty Work".
case is sadly closed.
Yeah but Dirty Work was released long after The Stones were in their prime so again it's kind of penalizing The Stones for sticking around. I'm sure if The Beatles stuck around sooner or later they would have released an album as bad as albums like Dirty Work, It's Hard and The Final Cut but since they quit we will never know.
Time to start a new thread - "Up to 1970 who was a better band".
Final Cut bad?
Yes, I actually like Final Cut as well. "Up to 1970 who was a better band"...is the only question that should be asked (actually, strike that...that shouldn't even be asked, but we're here, so...)
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
mitchflorida1
()
Date: August 31, 2012 04:47
I doubt if Jagger even thinks the Stones were better than the Beatles.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
nightskyman
()
Date: August 31, 2012 04:58
The Beatles were the first to open up the American market for british bands and in a big way. Though the Stones and other bands were competitive with the Beatles in terms of output and touring, etc., from 1964...the Beatles maintained superiority from late 1965 on with their output.
The 'Let It Be' album was not up to par, but only because it was not recorded in the usual manner (also no one othet than McCartney seemed to want to be there at Twickenham Studios). Even so, there are some great songs on the album, so even that one cannot be completely ignored.
The Rolling Stones put out some great records, but only a few over their long history come even close to the Beatles 1965-1969 output (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, perhaps Sticky Fingers but that's debatable).
The 'Let It Be' album was not up to par, but only because it was not recorded in the usual manner (also no one othet than McCartney seemed to want to be there at Twickenham Studios). Even so, there are some great songs on the album, so even that one cannot be completely ignored.
The Rolling Stones put out some great records, but only a few over their long history come even close to the Beatles 1965-1969 output (Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, perhaps Sticky Fingers but that's debatable).
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1629
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10