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:
GravityBoy
()
Date: September 30, 2012 23:26
Justin Bieber... the new Simeon Stylites of popular music.... makes all this argument redundant.
Also the nervous scouser guy in X Factor.
Abandon hope.
Also the nervous scouser guy in X Factor.
Abandon hope.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: September 30, 2012 23:42
Quote
WitnessQuote
Come On
..................................
The Beatles is the better of the 2 bands....
Having a boring Sunday in Stockholm?
Or have you slightly changed your views and preferences of taste?
Evidence:
In a thread with, would you guess, the title, «Who is the better, The Stones or the Beatles??»Quote
Come On, Jan 12th, 2007
I bought Beatles-singles back there in 1964, but when I heard 'Little Red Rooster' with Stones that stopped.Quote
Come On, Jan 12th,2007
Beatles was very tight...I think they were the better musicians and songwriters...but Stones had a style that was cooler...
Impressingly then, in the thread «Is the magic still there?»Quote
Come On, nov 6th 2006
Stones is getting better all the time...the only thing thats worries me is how long Keith is gonne be with us...
Added: You might of course answer that your position has not changed, holding the Beatles to be the better band, but the Stones to have (or have had) the "cooler" style. Only that you now playfully contented yourself to render the first part, without the second.
Impressive! It may be added that my written statements is not to compare with higher depreciation directly .. even being a Stones fan I dare say that the Beatles music on records is a step better than the Stones ...
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
GumbootCloggeroo
()
Date: September 30, 2012 23:57
and so did the stones. so what's your point?Quote
kish_stoned
beatles did make good music but also crap music
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
VT22
()
Date: October 1, 2012 00:09
At least they got something similar: Ringo and Ron, the luckiest guys in music business.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: October 1, 2012 07:18
Quote
VT22
At least they got something similar: Ringo and Ron, the luckiest guys in music business.
I'd say Ringo was a trifle luckier.
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
alimente
()
Date: October 1, 2012 07:57
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
VT22
At least they got something similar: Ringo and Ron, the luckiest guys in music business.
I'd say Ringo was a trifle luckier.
Now that's an interesting question: Where would Ron be without having joined the Stones back in the 70's?
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Come On
()
Date: October 1, 2012 08:15
...and where would Charlie be without having joined the Stones back in the 60´s?
2 1 2 0
2 1 2 0
Re: The Beatles were better than the Rolling stones
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: October 1, 2012 10:09
Quote
Come On
...and where would Charlie be without having joined the Stones back in the 60´s?
On a sadder note, not bringing any old quotations, without there being a band by the name of Rolling Stones, what might have become of Brian Jones?
On the other hand, as it is, musical and thereby personal honour that few blues (white blues, anyhow) and rock musicians attain.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2012-10-01 10:12 by Witness.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Angie73 , fareastlansingman , hot stuff , mariano , schwonek , spunky , stereomanic , TooTight , WillInUK
Guests:
1733
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10