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

Urban Hat€monger ? · 07-06-2011, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Try the Clash, they did a far better job than the Rolling Stones of incorporating a whole load of musical influences.

Could you recommend me, a rich sounding psychedelic album by the Stones?

So thats a no then

Unknown Soldier · 07-06-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necromancer

You know what Soldier? (I still laugh at your avatar!) for such blasphemy like that. Please enlighten me and explain exactly how the Beatles are a superior band? And we have all proved that the Beatles were not the first to use a "Sitar" by far.. Its already very well known that The Rolling Stones were the first ever original band that introduced the "Sitar" as an official instrument to be used by the band members, Keith Richards preferably!

Well Mr. B-movie avatar yours is a good laugh as well! also, I don`t know why everybody is going on about who first used the sitar either! Firstly, The Beatles were better because their golden era of creativity between 65-69 is better than that of the Stones between 68-72. Secondly, they had three geniuses to a very lesser/debatable amount in the Rolling Stones. Thirdly, more bands I love take their influences from the Beatles than they do from the Stones and finally the Beatles never got embarrasing on stage like the Stones did in the 80`s! I could go on...........

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

So thats a no then

Try Little Feat.

Necromancer · 07-06-2011, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier

Try Little Feat.

Well..I like Little Feat! They have one of the best "Live" albums of all-time.