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

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 10-10-2012, 11:34 PM   #11 (permalink)
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabio View Post
I mean, is it really necessary to state than one band is better than the other and the other sucks?
Talkin about the Beatles and the Stones is like debating if Mozart is better then Beethoven or Picasso is worst than van Gogh.makes no sense at all, imho, and no answer will be the definitive one, 'cause both artists are at the top of their categories and, most important things, tastes are subjective.
Regards
If you want to draw an analogy I think The Beatles would be Picasso and The Rolling Stones would be van Gogh.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.