| Scott_Mercury 08.05.2005 17:42 |
Which band is better?? Why?? |
| brENsKi 08.05.2005 17:52 |
this is a f***ing no brainer - only one winner The Beatles how can you even put the stones and beatles head to head? at least make a fair fight |
| Mercuryworks 08.05.2005 17:59 |
John Lennon always said if the Beatles never came The Stones would be the best Stones are good but no Beatles Why look at the amount of fans, sales, even paul solo is better than the stones this is not an opinion but fact this is coming from a HUGE Beatles Fan and A Huge Stones Fan |
| XcessQueen 08.05.2005 18:00 |
Beatles! ...because they have 2 or 3 good songs... and Rolling Stones have none!!! :))) |
| Mercuryworks 08.05.2005 18:02 |
XcessQueen wrote: Beatles! ...because they have 2 or 3 good songs... and Rolling Stones have none!!! :)))Rolling Stones have lots of hits and EVERY BEATLES SONG was a HIT |
| Scott_Mercury 08.05.2005 18:15 |
Brenski.. I totally agree... I think the Beatles are beyond the Rolling stones league... However... as sure as Freddie and Liberace are sitting at a Rhinestone piano together right now... someone will post on here that the Beatles are overated. Or my favorite...which is real original "Duh, da Beatles are 4 ugly dudes with 4 good songs" Whatever, The Beatles kick total ass. |
| hoop-didi-didi 08.05.2005 19:21 |
The Beatles hands down! :) |
| Bob The Shrek 08.05.2005 20:30 |
The Beatles record speaks for itself but I prefer listening to the Stones. |
| Saint Jiub 08.05.2005 20:43 |
Rolling Stones: the world's most over-rated band. Sure, the stones had a few good songs, but they could not carry The Beatles jock strap. The Beatles - absolutely no question. |
| Grantcdn 08.05.2005 22:30 |
yes Obviously the Beatles here....Stones had a few good songs in the 40 or so years they have been around but not much talent on the hole....The Beatles on the other hand were incredibly creative and wrote lots of great songs in a much shorter timespan.... Beatles by a landslide.......stones are so over-rated...maybe just because drugs were so popular at that time... |
| wstüssyb 08.05.2005 22:55 |
The Beatles, They came at the right time, simple words and simple music that no one has yet to par up with |
| Tero 08.05.2005 23:11 |
The Beatles are overrated. ;) I do appreciate the fact they have good songs, but saying every single one of them is a hit is just daft. :P |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 09.05.2005 02:01 |
The Beatles. I like The Rolling Stones but The Beatles, whether you like them or not, were revolutionary and changed music. |
| iGSM 09.05.2005 03:02 |
Well at least 27 of them are hits. Fuck you, Humperdinck! *goes to Strawberry Fields* The Beatles. I can't really say I know of many Stones songs..Only Rock 'n' Roll, Paint It Black..er..Frenchy French Frenches? Oh, that Satisfaction one too. I don't really take any interest in them. The love you take is equal to the love..*chords*..you make! *guitar solo* |
| Serry... 09.05.2005 03:02 |
The Beatles without any doubts... Would you make topic: Band Wars X..... Queen vs The Cross? :) |
| mr bad guy 5656 09.05.2005 03:57 |
hard one... But the beatles are the winner. :) |
| Smoggy 09.05.2005 10:00 |
The Beatles. No shadow of a doubt - they are the greatest band of all-time. No band before or since can touch them when it comes to output and the ability to write prolifically (sp) great material. They never made a bad album |
| Mexcal 09.05.2005 10:14 |
please don't say beatles by a landslide or things like that, you got to listen the stones's records between 1968/1972, and then you can talk |
| Tero 09.05.2005 10:33 |
Looking at the tracklists on the Beatles albums, it seems that they have a lot more lousy songs than the likes of Queen. Besides the hits available on 1962-1966, the first seven albums includes loads of totally unmemorable tracks as well as numerous cover songs... The latter half of the catalogue (that is not featured on the 1967-1970 compilation) consists of artsy fartsy pretentious crap culminating in the likes of "Revolution 9". Sadly the world is as objective about The Beatles' merits, as a Queen convention is when it comes to Roger's first solo album. :P |
| Mr.Jingles 09.05.2005 10:56 |
The Beatles definitely by a LANDSLIDE!! Sure thing, The Stones had their share of hits but they're still miles away from having so much musical essence like The Beatles did. It doesn't matter what era or what albums are we talking about. |
| Sonia Doris 09.05.2005 10:57 |
cookies? |
| iGSM 09.05.2005 11:05 |
What Tero said is true. There is a lot of crap on Help!, Please Please Me and Beatles for Sale and most of the covers of Chuck Berry/Dennis Quaid songs (heh, I know it's not Dennis Quaid). It's also true that Rubber Soul, The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's and Abbey Road/Let It Be contain avant-garde (i.e artsy fartsy crap) but I'll be damned if I don't like it, heh :) |
| Mr.Jingles 09.05.2005 11:12 |
A lot of people say that 'The White Album' is one of the best albums ever. It has some brilliant stuff without a doubt, but it has it's share of rubbish songs that are nothing but artsy experimental shit with no essence. |
| iGSM 09.05.2005 11:27 |
*coughwildhoneypie* |
| MexQueenFM 09.05.2005 12:31 |
The Rolling Stones, Satisfaction Hate the Beatles |
| Mean Mistreater 09.05.2005 12:39 |
Beatles hands down |
| john bodega 09.05.2005 12:58 |
The great thing about the Rolling Stones is that they've had 1, maybe 2 (5 at the most) good songs in 40 years. And those, I only like because my brother sang them in his band (and sang them *BETTER*). Then you look at the Beatles. 'nuff said. In the Beatles case, it is perhaps one of the few examples of the majority being right. |
| Saint Jiub 10.05.2005 00:34 |
iGSM wrote: *coughwildhoneypie*I quite like Wild Honey Pie. Rev #9 is quite awful though |
| bellydancer 10.05.2005 01:07 |
Its generally thought that if it weren't for the Beatles, rock n roll wouldn't be what it is today - whether or not you like their music they were pioneers in the techniques of recording music - even Brian May refers to them as such when talking about the making of Bo Rhap... However, I have to say that the Stones certainly have their share of hits - my favourite is Jumpin' Jack Flash |
| iGSM 10.05.2005 02:43 |
Heh, I like Wild Honey Pie.. it has to grow on you. Now Rev. 9 is indeed 'avant-gardé'/shit. It's true. I know I don't often hear Rolling Stones songs on the radio and I do listen to it quite a bit. Peh, maybe I'm just ignorant. Strawberry Fields Forever!!! |
| Mr.Jingles 10.05.2005 08:29 |
'Wild Honey Pie' is a very nice song. After all. Queen had songs like 'Bring Back That Leroy Brown' and 'Dreamer's Ball' that had a Jazz & Oldies sound. Revolution 9 is without a doubt the worst Beatles song ever. No wonder why, because I heard that Yoko partially wrote it with John. |
| iGSM 10.05.2005 11:00 |
I don't see the relevancy between Wild Honey Pie and Leroy Brown/Dreamers Ball. It sounds like a compilation of shit and Paul playing everything with that fucking flamenco bit at the end!! WHY PAUL! WHY!?!!?!!??!! Honey Pie on the other hand is a lovely song about Paul wooing Linda back to England. Remember that George Harrison had some involvement in Revolution 9. I Want You (She's So Heavy), Why Don't We Do It in The Road, Mr Moonlight, PS I Love You and to a lesser extent bleedin' Savoy Truffle? For fucks sake writing a song about Eric 'I-don't-know-enough-about-him-to-make-a-humourous-middle-name-for-him' Clapton's sweet tooth. The thing that saves Savoy Truffle is the guitar interlude by George. Don't bring up Ob-la-Di, Ob-la-Da. |
| MexQueenFM 10.05.2005 15:24 |
<font color ="#FF66E6">***Marial-B*** wrote:Ok, i don't hate them, I dislike them :PMexQueenFM wrote: The Rolling Stones, Satisfaction Hate the Beatles:'(, now you make me cry... how could you hate the best band in the world besides Queen??? That's like telling me you hate the Real Madrid it's just, i just don't feel nothing for them :S , I think they are overrated, they put me to sleep actually :S , Queen are way out of their league :D and i could never hate Real Madrid :P |
| LiveAidQueen 10.05.2005 16:21 |
The Stones suck, The Beatles. |
| Queenleaf 10.05.2005 16:35 |
Beatles but I like the Stones too. |
| INXS 10.05.2005 19:38 |
They've defined sex, drugs and rock and roll for over 40 years, they have survided the changing of the times, time and time again, from 'swingin London' to the new millenium, they have become the longest-running and most successful band in rock and roll history, they are legendary in their own lifetime...and time is still on their side! The Rolling Stones! |
| iGSM 11.05.2005 10:46 |
I hated it when the Beatles kicked 9 goals each for Real Madrid against Fake Madrid. EACH! |