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 12-20-2010, 08:01 AM   #11 (permalink)
Divination
 
Necromancer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axiomatic Wiki View Post
I think the two bands are not really comparable. Beatles are a lot of things, but they are not what the Stones are, Hard Rock. The only things they have in common are their time periods and the impact they had on music. Anyone who prefers hard rock to psychedelic pop will most likely like the stones better, where as vice versa, would probably prefer The Beatles. Their styles are so different, and they were both innovates and masters of their styles of music.
That said, I definitely prefer The Beatles ^_^
Good post, except I prefer The Stones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RingotheRat View Post
1. Keith Richards , coolest guitarist on the planet- Coolest maybe but George Harrison is still tehcnically better so your point is void in my eyes. He played the first backwards guitar on 'I'm Only Sleeping' how does Richards compare to that?
Harrison's style may be more technical in theory, Richards style is more R&B/blues, basic old school Rock & Roll. Both are equal as popular guitarist.
Necromancer is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.