how is that not an opinion?

but seriously if one wants to prove the stones were better you're not convincing anyone with points like that^... otherwise its just trolling

Lols. Of course its subjective. When Urban made the thread he knew there would be a lotta backlash so he used off-banter reasons rather than creating a retardedly long argument. If you wanna argue with him, go for it. But he certainly wasn't trying to convince you of anything. :rolleyes:

Cat got your sense of humor?

Another one fell for it :D

Dude, didja not hear me? A debate is several conflicting opinions constructed in an intelligent way (that can be comical, depending on the individuals in which are partaking in thee debate). No one can prove anything, ever. It's all subjective. That's the point. If it bothers you, don't take part in it. Don't try to change the world with posts.

the beatles were a pop band
basically the same as one of todays boy bands...
their image and early sound was dictated by their manager
and all the experimentalism that they are purported as having pioneered was already old news it was just popularised by them.
Vs
the stones
maybe less experimental but definitely twee free
just a really good rock band
a logical progression

Except no boy band could ever write as a good lyrics as the Beatles did. And there manager was pretty smart then because 'Help!' and 'Hard Day's Night' are very good albums.

Beatles used the 'old news' and did it better than anyone else and the time, even the creators.

dressed up nursery rhymes about psychedelic drugs and pop songs about holding hands....
towards the end they were a bit more interesting
i love abbey road
but the majority of their catalogue bores me

you're point about their "old news" being used better is valid, but still, they shouldnt be credited with it for experimentalism.

You love Abbey Road AND hate the Beatles? That's a little conflicting, is it not?

thats the exception...
i hate the majority of their catalogue