10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

Unknown Soldier · 06-29-2012, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howard the Duck

it's "Kuala Lumpur"

Lumpur just means "mud"

i'm not a pig

It was my attempt to just use the letter L for cities, in a weak attempt to ressurect the "Extreme Game"

The Batlord · 06-29-2012, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BastardofYoung

......well........

Beat me to it.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-29-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

I think he just dislikes people from Liverpool.

Who?
Me?

Flyingpig437 · 06-29-2012, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by franscar

11. When the Stones had a strop with each other they didn't start a cat fight that's carried on for 30 years despite one of the people involved in the cat fight being dead.

That's one of my fav. post anywhere ever!

Vertigo · 06-29-2012, 01:00 PM

I much prefer The Rolling Stones to The Beatles. I've giving them both a fair crap of the whip and found The Beatles to be incredibly average and that's being kind.

blastingas10 · 06-29-2012, 01:54 PM

Hmm... The Beatles average and the stones aren't? I'm not saying either one is average but if one of them is it's the stones. Sure, they Beatles first albums weren't all that great, I'll give you that, but they got there. The stones were just playing blues Rock, they were good at it, but it's still blues rock, something that was already being done. They really weren't very innovative in any way. They had a folk side with songs like "Angie", which is a great song, but still, nothing out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, the Beatles started coming out with these great, innovative albums. It all started with rubber soul when george busted out the sitar, something that had never been done in Rock or pop. And that inspired the beach boys the come out with pet sounds, as it's been said (I know plenty of you will refute that claim), and then after pet sounds came sgt peppers which really brought rock n roll to this new peek of creativity and originality. One of the most innovative am influential albums ever, something that can't be said about anything the stones did.

So you have one band, the beatles, who were innovating and inspiring and progressing rock like no one had done before. And then you have the stones, who were playing some good blues rock, had a flamboyant singer that the chicks loved, and that's about it. They were good at what they did but what they did was nothing out of the ordinary. They weren't innovators like chuck berry, someone who really kicked off the blues rock genre, they didn't take it to another level like Hendrix did, they just played good blues rock with an acoustic, folky side as well. Once again, great band, but nothing compared to the Beatles.

BastardofYoung · 06-29-2012, 03:52 PM

^ win.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-29-2012, 03:53 PM

Win?

You're so easily led.

BastardofYoung · 06-29-2012, 03:58 PM

no, i just think he hit the nail on the head. One was innovative and one was just image over art.

To prefer The Stones to the The Beatles is fine, but to believe the former is better, in my mind, favoring image over art.

I like The Stones, but they never did anything unique or original. They had 8 great years to 40+ bad ones. The Beatles never made a bad album.

Think what you want, I like The Stones myself.... but they are not even close to the level of The Beatles.

I think what blasting said is spot on.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 06-29-2012, 04:00 PM

Oh dear.

Just so you know the reason this thread exists is because it was a parody of posts like that.

06-29-2012, 03:52 PM	#467 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	^ win. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

06-29-2012, 03:53 PM	#468 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Win? You're so easily led. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

06-29-2012, 03:58 PM	#469 (permalink)
BastardofYoung Buzz Killjoy Join Date: May 2011 Location: Canada Posts: 2,692	no, i just think he hit the nail on the head. One was innovative and one was just image over art. To prefer The Stones to the The Beatles is fine, but to believe the former is better, in my mind, favoring image over art. I like The Stones, but they never did anything unique or original. They had 8 great years to 40+ bad ones. The Beatles never made a bad album. Think what you want, I like The Stones myself.... but they are not even close to the level of The Beatles. I think what blasting said is spot on. __________________ last.fm ‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

06-29-2012, 04:00 PM	#470 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ? The Sexual Intellectual Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Somewhere cooler than you Posts: 18,605	Oh dear. Just so you know the reason this thread exists is because it was a parody of posts like that. __________________ Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.

06-29-2012, 01:00 PM	#465 (permalink)
Vertigo Music Addict Join Date: May 2012 Location: North West England Posts: 167	I much prefer The Rolling Stones to The Beatles. I've giving them both a fair crap of the whip and found The Beatles to be incredibly average and that's being kind.

06-29-2012, 01:54 PM	#466 (permalink)
blastingas10 Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 2,126	Hmm... The Beatles average and the stones aren't? I'm not saying either one is average but if one of them is it's the stones. Sure, they Beatles first albums weren't all that great, I'll give you that, but they got there. The stones were just playing blues Rock, they were good at it, but it's still blues rock, something that was already being done. They really weren't very innovative in any way. They had a folk side with songs like "Angie", which is a great song, but still, nothing out of the ordinary. On the other hand, the Beatles started coming out with these great, innovative albums. It all started with rubber soul when george busted out the sitar, something that had never been done in Rock or pop. And that inspired the beach boys the come out with pet sounds, as it's been said (I know plenty of you will refute that claim), and then after pet sounds came sgt peppers which really brought rock n roll to this new peek of creativity and originality. One of the most innovative am influential albums ever, something that can't be said about anything the stones did. So you have one band, the beatles, who were innovating and inspiring and progressing rock like no one had done before. And then you have the stones, who were playing some good blues rock, had a flamboyant singer that the chicks loved, and that's about it. They were good at what they did but what they did was nothing out of the ordinary. They weren't innovators like chuck berry, someone who really kicked off the blues rock genre, they didn't take it to another level like Hendrix did, they just played good blues rock with an acoustic, folky side as well. Once again, great band, but nothing compared to the Beatles.