 Author
|
Topic: THE BEATLES vs THE ROLLING STONES !!!!!!! Who wins ?? (Read 46100 times)
|
grimoneus
Guest
|
Oh No!  I have dropped myself in it this time haven't I?  Just please, no hynotizing! ...ahem, Stones.  Grim certainly doesn't expect the conversion process to be easy,but he'll continue to patiently and relentlessly chip away bit by bit at your ardent Stones devotion until you finally succumb to the thrall of Beatlemania! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willingmind
|
Somewhere along the line I have said it all when it comes to the Stones. They are in my DNA. They are my blood type. They are my heart and soul. From womb to grave and beyond they are my soundmen. My soundtrack. Because, and yes this is by my reckoning, the Stones took a different path then the Beatles. Let us put this in a historical context: Both bands are children of German bombing. A couple are even old enough to have known this first hand. What they had to listen to was sporadic at best but through the fog.... yes! Some music from the States [haveing not been bombed to oblivion]. The two greatest exports America has ever known; Jazz and Blues. Remember Glenn Miller? An American Hero of the highest order. Coming out of the war as these lads grew... what is this? Buddy! Elvis! Chuck! and etcetera... To both what would become The Beatles or The Stones, this was heady times. Was I there to tell the Beatles to go one way and to tell the Stones to go to ground? No! Did I tell the Stones to be grittier and harder edged? No. Was I there to tell the Stones to become enamored with the Blues.... ? No. But thank the music gods they were. Somebody needed to counter the "pop" that was being fed to the masses. Somebody, both Beatles and Stones, had to remind white people that black artists were grooving to a beat the rest of the world could not even begin to understand. Because they were square. In the end it makes no difference Beatles or Stones really. They both have salvaged us all. I just know that as a Blues based band the Stones are mine for all eternity. The Stones live on because the music is from the primeval need to groove. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhVLiHPUOIM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEq1Xho1h3Q |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sed cur cervisia abest?
|
|
|
|
STRICKEN11
|
hell the beatles.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Always there for her no matter what the cost  |
|
|
|
Pbor
|
The Beatles hands down.
Though the Stones are great on their own right, the Beatles are definitely the greatest. No rock band has matched the influence that they made on the industry, and continue to have on artists today. They were the first to push new boundaries and set new records in all levels of entertainment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willingmind
|
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 11:38:12 pm by willingmind »
|
Logged
|
Sed cur cervisia abest?
|
|
|
|
STRICKEN11
|
i agree. they both contributed 2 2days music |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Always there for her no matter what the cost |
|
|
|
kaitlin317
|
The Beatles hands down.
Though the Stones are great on their own right, the Beatles are definitely the greatest. No rock band has matched the influence that they made on the industry, and continue to have on artists today. They were the first to push new boundaries and set new records in all levels of entertainment.
Agreed! Though I think this should be "Beatles vs. Led Zeppelin" instead of the Stones. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 11:32:16 am by kaitlin317 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willingmind
|
I am curious only. Who, of all the Beatles "fans", have seen them live? Not that seeing a band live is the reason to judge or dismiss...
I myself have only seen the Stones the three times. Yet it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know the Stones delivered. If you where there you would know what I mean. The point being, ifn you haven't been to a live Rolling Stones event... then how the flying fig do you actually believe you have a clue what the feck you are talking about?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sed cur cervisia abest?
|
|
|
|
|
|
nicerack
|
Beats me.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
All who nuh like Nicerack uno go chuck off! A dat mi seh!
|
|
|
|
johnh
|
I'm not sure if a general grasp of grammar and language is any indicator of musical taste, but if the two are correlated then The Beatles have to be the superior band. Instead of deciding this on the unsubstantiated back and forths of clearly one-sided fans, it might be a better idea to read up on the opinions of seriously talented musicians possessing a deeper grasp of the matter than "Stones is better cos they is great live". I would think that to make any comment on this you'd need an intimate understanding of both bands - I'm only getting into the Stones so I won't pass judgement, but I do know - from listening to every Beatles album over and over since I was introduced to them at age six - that anyone who does not understand the versatility and growth through all their albums is not in a strong position to comment.
Beatles fan and, hopefully, a Stones fan sometime soon.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
kissarmy
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 6
October 6th....Sonic Boom
|
Just me, but I think they both suck. But I'd have to go with the Stones. At least the Stones are still alive and still a band. I must say...Mick's voice grates on my nerves like nails on a chalk board.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
willingmind
|
Just me, but I think they both suck. But I'd have to go with the Stones. At least the Stones are still alive and still a band. I must say...Mick's voice grates on my nerves like nails on a chalk board.
...and he can't dance!! What the heck is that anyway? I will tell you what, even seeing them live I could not figure out what the heck Sir Mick was playing at! Yet as a fan from the womb and beyond, who cares!! Sir Mick sure as heck has the energy and bless his hippy-hopping soul for having the unabashed nerve to keep it all rolling. I do not buy the music of any artist because I give a flying fig about them personally, it is only the finished product I am interested in. And the Stones, as ever, remain my personal soundmen. Also, Michael may have an "untrained" voice yet it somehow remains a voice that will carry on for eons... Just like a solid bluesman from any era. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Sed cur cervisia abest?
|
|
|
|
Roeby
|
???NO CONTEST! - If it wasn`t for THE BEATLES, THERE WOULD B NO STONES! As far all the stones are still alive-I guess John hired that #@$%#$ 2 KILL him.OH,and GEORGE, I`m sure he luvd having cancer! They are still THE Greatest BAND! P.S-Keith looks like he`s dead already.
ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE- PEACE!  [/list] |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
There are days when U don`t have a song in UR Heart,SING ANYWAY!
|
|
|
|
kaitlin317
|
Just me, but I think they both suck. But I'd have to go with the Stones. At least the Stones are still alive and still a band. I must say...Mick's voice grates on my nerves like nails on a chalk board.
So..the Stones are the better band because John and George died? That makes a lot of sense. |: |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
 |
