Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s

LSD is very bad for you. beetles were rank, super overrated amateurs

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
stonesrule
Well, you woke 'em up today Erik! Good work.

Nice to see somebody sharp enough to get it, posting here
You're in a minority, Stonesrule

And I allready regret starting this thread btw. People are simply too serious here

LOL - Erik only 236 pages to go and you will catch up with - What are you listening to this very second?

Quote
mickscarey

Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s

LSD is very bad for you. beetles were rank, super overrated amateurs

Not that you had any credibility to begin with.......

what are you doing there ?

JackMark

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Erik_Snow

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
walkingthedog

Quote
Erik_Snow
Listened through the Beatles albums today, on vinyl. Even the record that is considered a turkey; Let It Be, is far superior to anything RS wanted to do at the time. Nevermind Keith thinking he invented the open G thingy. The Beatles were geniuses, Rolling Stones were just a bunch of wuzzies back then. And they would have continued to be that, if not getting confidence through drugs in the 70s

It's getting dark in northern Norway these days and depression is already setting in.

You nailed it ...

Nailed what? You haven't even been here
Sun is up 20 hours a day here. Way brighter days than what you suckers down south has the cope with. So much for your nailings

Keep on raising toasts to yourself, Per Arne and "walking the dog"s great heads. You got yourself nailed for sure - nailed in your private parts

He nailed it, yes, yes, yes - your are already in depression state even if you should be so.
Must be devastating living so far away from humanity, that you get predepressed thinking Beatles were anything good.... you must have swallowed something wrong these last few days...

What can one reply to this sicko-scenario? Beats me.
Hope you don't use your wierdo-ness on something bad, but keep it to posting on IORR. Thank you

It is you who is sick and wired talking about Beatles being better than Stones - what rubbish.
Beatles is happy / joyfyl / tarlalalala music sung by amongst them a happy / joyfull / goffy litle thing....
Beatles being being better than Stones!!!
You must have had a very bad day.
Go back to sleep and wake up again next summer, when your depression is gone.
Have a nice sleep up there ....

Sick and wired....Erik, you are sick and wired!

Anyhoo...Rockman settled this one a long and winding road ago...

Quote
mtaylor

Beatles is happy / joyfyl / tarlalalala music sung by amongst them a happy / joyfull / goffy litle thing....

Hah, what an ignorant idiot you are!

I think the question is not about who's better. They had different styles. Listen how The Stones transform "I wanna be your man". And the 1966/1969 period we can listen how different the two bands sound. And i like both. We have the pleasure of listen an Rubber Soul or a Aftermath, a Revolver or a Between The Buttons, a SGT Peppers or TSMR, a White Album or a Beggar's Banquet... I've think they are both great.
The rest is personal tastes. I personally think that The Doors are better than The Rolling Stones. But it is just a personal opinion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 22:24 by BJPortugal.

Quote
BJPortugal
I think the question is not about who's better. They had different styles. Listen how The Stones transform "I wanna be your man". And the 1966/1969 period we can listen how different the two bands sound. And i like both. We have the pleasure of listen and Rubber Soul or a Aftermath, a Revolver or a Between The Buttons, a SGT Peppers or TSMR, a White Album or a Beggar's Banquet... I've think they are both great.
The rest is personal tastes. I personally think that The Doors are better than The Rolling Stones. But it is just a personal opinion.

haha, here comes - The Doors were better than the Rolling Stones thread!

I seem to recall that in another Beatles vs. Stones thread someone had posted videos of the Stones and Beatles covering Carol in order to show that The Stones were better, despite the fact that they compared early sixties Beatles to the Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out version by the Stones, which is a silly comparison considering how different the world was between those two times.

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
I seem to recall that in another Beatles vs. Stones thread someone had posted videos of the Stones and Beatles covering Carol in order to show that The Stones were better, despite the fact that they compared early sixties Beatles to the Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out version by the Stones, which is a silly comparison considering how different the world was between those two times.

I don't recall The Beatles fixing any of their live albums either... Just goes to show, those Rolling Stones are cheaters! The Lance Armstrongs of rock! CHEATERS!

Quote
WeLoveToPlayTheBlues

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Sighunt
I don't know why these kinds of posts continue to re-appear (maybe it is just breaking the monotony until a possible Stones tour is announced), but this will always be an apples vs. oranges argument..

are the stones the apples or the oranges?

Who's the bananas?

the velvet underground maybe. that bunch got a banana on an album cover, so...

Quote
GumbootCloggeroo
Why do some Stones fans feel so personally threatened when someone says something is better than The Stones? It's like they have to defend the band to death.

you know the reason as well as i do.

Quote
Erik_Snow
And I already regret starting this thread btw.

liar. this is going exactly as planned. i tip my hat and flick my cigar ash your way.

Personally think the Bay City Rollers surpassed the drab four.
Yawn.

I take this moment to officially announce that I am NOT a vegetarian.

Man that feels good to finally say.

Quote
Munichhilton
I take this moment to officially announce that I am NOT a vegetarian.

Man that feels good to finally say.

><

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
mtaylor

Beatles is happy / joyfyl / tarlalalala music sung by amongst them a happy / joyfull / goffy litle thing....

Hah, what an ignorant idiot you are!

Sorry, but that's the truth - difficult to realize to quite some people.
But, the goofy thing is way too stupid. Huh, huh....

It's not about who's better. It's a matter of personal taste. Both bands created loads of great music but their styles were unique to each band. It's like comparing apples and oranges. What band is your favorite is a matter of taste. They were both great artists.

Quote
belld
Personally think the Bay City Rollers...

Just like the stones, they too had a peedo band member.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 21:44 by His Majesty.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
His Majesty

Quote
mtaylor

Beatles is happy / joyfyl / tarlalalala music sung by amongst them a happy / joyfull / goffy litle thing....

Hah, what an ignorant idiot you are!

Sorry, but that's the truth - difficult to realize to quite some people.
But, the goofy thing is way too stupid. Huh, huh....

There's many a dark Beatles track, but yer obviously too stupid to notice. ><

Oh....and beer is good food

Quote
stonesdan60
It's not about who's better. It's a matter of personal taste. Both bands created loads of great music but their styles were unique to each band. It's like comparing apples and oranges. What band is your favorite is a matter of taste. They were both great artists.

I've never understood why one have to choose. It's just stupid.

Quote
stonesdan60
It's not about who's better. It's a matter of personal taste. Both bands created loads of great music but their styles were unique to each band. It's like comparing apples and oranges. What band is your favorite is a matter of taste. They were both great artists.

again with the fruit business. what's so bad about comparing fruits?

all these insults getting hurled around. erik is out there lovin' it!

you are all a bunch of stupid idiots. erik only thinks you're regular idiots, but he's wrong.

It is actually OK to like both groups...

We're all Beatle fans dressed in Stones shirts, ha-ha.

Quote
StonesTod
all these insults getting hurled around. erik is out there lovin' it!

you are all a bunch of stupid idiots. erik only thinks you're regular idiots, but he's wrong.

What a perfect saturday night - I love it

A few more beers, "I'll be back".... with a big Terminator Smile, ready to ffffight... )))

it's n'awlins in austin. cajun bread, creole gumbo and abita ambeers. saturday night comes around only once or twice a week...don't blow it.

Quote
tonterapi

I've never understood why one have to choose. It's just stupid.

Yah don't and it is.

For the fan of both, one can still be better than the other though.

In 1969 King Crimson were better than both of em though.

Hail the kings of 1969 with Brian cheering em on...





Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2012-08-25 23:51 by His Majesty.