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

ProggyMan · 03-23-2008, 08:52 PM

Just about.

NSW · 03-23-2008, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Just about.

I don't really think they both suck ass, I just got tired of watching everyone wax philosophical about which one is better. They both have redeeming qualities, but neither one is just out-of-this-world awesome. This is all my humble opinion of course.

ProggyMan · 03-23-2008, 10:18 PM

Once again, why? What makes them mediocre?

NSW · 03-23-2008, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Once again, why? What makes them mediocre?

I don't know...they just don't do it for me. I'm sorry I don't have a better answer.

They don't evoke any feeling in me. But since I know they do for other people, I should probably apologize for my earlier comment. SORRY!

Now that I think about it, I guess I would have to go with the Stones if I were forced to choose between the two bands. There are a few of their songs that can get me going, if I'm in the right mood. But the Beatles also have some catchy tunes that are easy to sing along too. GGAAWWW...I just don't know.

the13thzen · 03-24-2008, 01:36 AM

My immediate response to the thread title was "No!"; I would say that Beatles songs are better constructed, more diverse, and deeper than Rolling Stones songs for the most-part. I know Beatles started with all the pop-y bubblegum stuff, but they eventually became so much more. (This thread's origin date is way old.)

boo boo · 04-01-2008, 09:13 AM

I could name an overwhelming amount of bands that I think are more talented than The Rolling Stones, some of whom are bands I don't even like.

If I had to name one band I think to be the most overrated band of all time, it would most certainly be The Rolling Stones.

megajosh2 · 04-04-2008, 07:40 PM

Man, this thread is impossible to solve in one persons favor.
<3> Reasons the Beatles are better than the Stones:

1. Their songs were more meaningful than just blatant bantering about sex and drugs.

2. They went in more of a direction than just pop music, unlike how the Rolling Stones were 90% R&B.

3. The Beatles made trends instead of followed them.

<3> Reasons the Stones were better than the Beatles:

1. They were more gritty than the Beatles were when the Beatles were around.

2. The Keith Richars riffs were epic in comparison to the riffs that the Beatles did.

3. The Rolling Stones had a more badass image.

THERE. Guess who I like more.

ProggyMan · 04-05-2008, 12:02 AM

Only 2 of those reasons are valid.

megajosh2 · 04-05-2008, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megajosh2

Man, this thread is impossible to solve in one persons favor.
<3> Reasons the Beatles are better than the Stones:

1. Their songs were more meaningful than just blatant bantering about sex and drugs.

2. They went in more of a direction than just pop music, unlike how the Rolling Stones were 90% R&B.

3. The Beatles made trends instead of followed them.

<3> Reasons the Stones were better than the Beatles:

1. They were more gritty than the Beatles were when the Beatles were around.

2. The Keith Richars riffs were epic in comparison to the riffs that the Beatles did.

3. The Rolling Stones had a more badass image.

THERE. Guess who I like more.

I liked the Beatles better...

Let it be > Start Me Up
Rain > Satanic Majesties Request
Hey Jude > (I Ain't Get No) Satisfaction
Yesterday > Wild Horses

I only listed a few...

Seltzer · 04-05-2008, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

If I wanted annoying wailing I'll listen to Jon Anderson

As much as I like Yes, I dislike his vocals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProggyMan

Abbey Road and Revolver probably have the best Beatles riffs.

Maybe it's just me, but I love the riff in And Your Bird Can Sing.

04-04-2008, 07:40 PM	#7 (permalink)
megajosh2 Groupie Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: location, location. Posts: 9	Man, this thread is impossible to solve in one persons favor. <3> Reasons the Beatles are better than the Stones: 1. Their songs were more meaningful than just blatant bantering about sex and drugs. 2. They went in more of a direction than just pop music, unlike how the Rolling Stones were 90% R&B. 3. The Beatles made trends instead of followed them. <3> Reasons the Stones were better than the Beatles: 1. They were more gritty than the Beatles were when the Beatles were around. 2. The Keith Richars riffs were epic in comparison to the riffs that the Beatles did. 3. The Rolling Stones had a more badass image. THERE. Guess who I like more. Last edited by megajosh2; 04-04-2008 at 09:11 PM.

03-23-2008, 08:52 PM	#1 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	Just about.

03-23-2008, 10:18 PM	#3 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	Once again, why? What makes them mediocre?

03-24-2008, 01:36 AM	#5 (permalink)
the13thzen Groupie Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: AZ Posts: 26	My immediate response to the thread title was "No!"; I would say that Beatles songs are better constructed, more diverse, and deeper than Rolling Stones songs for the most-part. I know Beatles started with all the pop-y bubblegum stuff, but they eventually became so much more. (This thread's origin date is way old.)

04-05-2008, 12:02 AM	#8 (permalink)
ProggyMan Reformed Jackass Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 3,964	Only 2 of those reasons are valid.