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 11-17-2008, 11:59 AM   #11 (permalink)
Music Addict
 
Veronica Lodge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Riverdale.
Posts: 174
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by petebragansa View Post
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.
__________________
- Veronica Lodge -


Yes, that IS what I said.
Veronica Lodge is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.