10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (pop, rock)

stratsnteles · 11-13-2008, 03:23 PM

The Stones never (or at least I can't recall) never got loudmouth and political like that whiny hypocrite John Lennon and his peacenik far left hippy *hi*. Telling us all to imagine no religion, borders, money, etc. while living like a king. While I certainly would never be glad that anyone leave this world like John Lennon did, I don't miss his politics and voice. Stones were just gritty, in your face real rock and roll that bordered on musical porn (and I mean that in a GOOD way).

Son of JayJamJah · 11-13-2008, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stratsnteles

The Stones never (or at least I can't recall) never got loudmouth and political like that whiny hypocrite John Lennon and his peacenik far left hippy *hi*. Telling us all to imagine no religion, borders, money, etc. while living like a king. While I certainly would never be glad that anyone leave this world like John Lennon did, I don't miss his politics and voice. Stones were just gritty, in your face real rock and roll that bordered on musical porn (and I mean that in a GOOD way).

Do you despise all musicians going political?

Anteater · 11-13-2008, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayJamJah

Do you despise all musicians going political?

I think we'd be better off if politicians went musical IMO.

petebragansa · 11-13-2008, 09:33 PM

the Beatles were produced by George Martin, whereas the Stones produced themselves. This is a crucial difference in why they are more real. In fact, this is the schism in music overall: producers and anyone not in the band usually ruin the band. Then again, Beatles are great, but as for "realness", you can't beat Exile and Sticky Fingers, two raw albums that the Beatles couldn't equal....even on their last record...where they tried!
- Peter Bragansa

dac · 11-14-2008, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petebragansa

the Beatles were produced by George Martin, whereas the Stones produced themselves. This is a crucial difference in why they are more real. In fact, this is the schism in music overall: producers and anyone not in the band usually ruin the band. Then again, Beatles are great, but as for "realness", you can't beat Exile and Sticky Fingers, two raw albums that the Beatles couldn't equal....even on their last record...where they tried!
- Peter Bragansa

"Realness?" Wtf is that?

Double X · 11-14-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anteater

I think we'd be better off if politicians went musical IMO.

He's definitly more of a bassist though. He looks weird when he smiles, so if he was an emotionless bassist he be would THE man.

lucifer_sam · 11-15-2008, 01:01 AM

Didn't Bill Clinton play saxophone and Mike Huckabee plays guitar?

I still say that we should elect presidents based upon their cage-fighting skills. Nothing like a MMA bout to show who's got bigger balls.

Veronica Lodge · 11-17-2008, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petebragansa

the Beatles were produced by George Martin, whereas the Stones produced themselves. This is a crucial difference in why they are more real. In fact, this is the schism in music overall: producers and anyone not in the band usually ruin the band. Then again, Beatles are great, but as for "realness", you can't beat Exile and Sticky Fingers, two raw albums that the Beatles couldn't equal....even on their last record...where they tried!
- Peter Bragansa

George Martin was a genius. Hello, greatest producer of all time. Hi, SIR GEORGE MARTIN.

Do you not like Jeff Beck? Or James Bond films? Those also have George Martin all over them.

What the hell have the Stones ever done, other than NOT STOPPED TOURING.

Blech, over it.

Urban Hat€monger ? · 11-17-2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Veronica Lodge

What the hell have the Stones ever done, other than NOT STOPPED TOURING.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

Veronica Lodge · 11-17-2008, 01:07 PM

You don't agree?

11-13-2008, 03:23 PM	#251 (permalink)
stratsnteles Groupie Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 1	Another reason (if I might add) The Stones never (or at least I can't recall) never got loudmouth and political like that whiny hypocrite John Lennon and his peacenik far left hippy hi. Telling us all to imagine no religion, borders, money, etc. while living like a king. While I certainly would never be glad that anyone leave this world like John Lennon did, I don't miss his politics and voice. Stones were just gritty, in your face real rock and roll that bordered on musical porn (and I mean that in a GOOD way).

11-15-2008, 01:01 AM	#257 (permalink)
lucifer_sam Unrepentant Ass-Mod Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3,921	Didn't Bill Clinton play saxophone and Mike Huckabee plays guitar? I still say that we should elect presidents based upon their cage-fighting skills. Nothing like a MMA bout to show who's got bigger balls. __________________ first.am

11-17-2008, 01:07 PM	#260 (permalink)
Veronica Lodge Music Addict Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Riverdale. Posts: 174	You don't agree? __________________ - Veronica Lodge - Yes, that IS what I said.

11-13-2008, 09:33 PM	#254 (permalink)
petebragansa Groupie Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 2	the Beatles were produced by George Martin, whereas the Stones produced themselves. This is a crucial difference in why they are more real. In fact, this is the schism in music overall: producers and anyone not in the band usually ruin the band. Then again, Beatles are great, but as for "realness", you can't beat Exile and Sticky Fingers, two raw albums that the Beatles couldn't equal....even on their last record...where they tried! - Peter Bragansa