Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 01-22-2005, 06:10 AM   #5 (permalink)
Sneer
Let it drip
 
Sneer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger
1. Keith Richards , coolest guitarist on the planet

2. Mick Jagger , greatest frontman of all time

3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful ,back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with ?

4. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are better than kiddie love songs & mystical bollocks.
Beatles - Wrote chart friendly pop songs & ballads. Stones wrote gritty hard rock songs

5. The Beatles had to have their faces on album covers , The Stones could stick a picture of a toilet on theirs & still have it sell millions.

7. The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn`t hack it , Keith Richards played an entire gig at gunpoint.

9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus , Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss.
Both bad yes but if forced at gunpoint I know what i`m going to choose.

10 Apperence , looking like you just got dragged from the street > Matching suits. How many bands these days look like this...

No contest
before you attack me, i love both these bands...however...
points 1 and 2 are matters of opionion. its subjective. point 3 is totally irrevelant to the topic. how does the woman on your arm effect how good the music is? point 4- again its personal opinion. some people prefered the flower-power hippy idealisms to the rock n roll facade in the 60s. no. 5 is not entirely correct as the white album, yellow submarine and 1 did not feature their faces. Anyway, merely having the band name is just as effective as the band pictures and im pretty sure the stones had their name on every frontcover of their albums. no. 7...how does playing at gunpoint make you a better band than someone else? no. 9 wasnt exactly the bands was it? they were solo projects and we're not talking about solos. no. 10, the beatles image was pure 60s- it was the fad of the day just as the long haired, emo look is nowadays. did the stones crasck america in anyway near the extent the beatles did? im sure they didnt. granted the stones have had a longer career and that is the mark of a great band. but i still prefer the beatles
Sneer is offline   Reply With Quote