Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Bassfreak]
    #21377281 -

Their later shit wasn't all that great either. Besides, it doesn't get more rock & roll than Keith Richards. That mother fucker is still alive. If "Sir" Paul partied even a tenth as hard as Keith, he'd be long dead.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Dark_Star]
    #21377286 -

Fair enough, but if the Beatles are overrated then the stones are just that much more overrated. Mick Jagger was a great entertainer, he had stage presence and charisma, and thank goodness he did, he's a terrible vocalist. Brian Jones was the star of the Stones in my opinion, as well as Keith, but I think Mick had one of the worst voices I've ever heard.

ESPECIALLY when it came to vocals, The Beatles outclassed the Stones, it's not even the same ballpark. The harmonies The Beatles put together, nobody else has ever done. The Stones couldn't harmonize or sing worth a shit really.

It's really a matter of opinion, but I don't see how you can listen to these bands side by side and actually think the Stones are a better group, you may like them more, but as far as accomplishments, it's not even close. Also, to hate on The Beatles music because they weren't the "bad boys" like the Stones were is invalid and says nothing about the music.

Again, it's opinion so I can't tell you what to think, but the Stones just had little to no talent in my opinion.

Dark_Star said:
Their later shit wasn't all that great either. Besides, it doesn't get more rock & roll than Keith Richards. That mother fucker is still alive. If "Sir" Paul partied even a tenth as hard as Keith, he'd be long dead.


How does that make for a better "band"? It's about the music not the drug use. Who was "cooler" would be a different argument, possibly. Nobody in the Stones dropped acid like John Lennon, that's for sure.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #21377298 -

John Lennon was a woman beating hypocrite, no amount of acid changed that. I've listened to the Beatles side by side with the Stones countless times. I grew up with these bands. The Stones always won. Their music is better, and with some exceptions, the Beatles bore me.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Dark_Star]
    #21377309 -

I never said I respect John Lennon as a person, I was just referencing drug use as you did. John Lennon's values didn't resonate with me in any way at all. "Imagine" sure as hell isn't the world I've want to live in. Regardless, I love him as an artist/songwriter, but I do agree with you on him as a person.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #21377380 -

the beatles later work was better than anything the stones did


--------------------
Tom Brady is a God

Free Tom Brady

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Bassfreak]
    #21377394 -

Without a doubt.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: The Lizard King]
    #21377429 -

i don't get why people constantly compare these two bands.



that would be like comparing boz scaggs or steely dan with beck or the flaming lips


sorry, but no


--------------------
channel your inner Larry David

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Bassfreak]
    #21377436 -

Nah, not even close. At the end of day though, I'll take Motown & Stax over both bands.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Dark_Star]
    #21377457 -

Hell yeah, so would I.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Peace of Mind 1]
    #21377473 -

:highfive:


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Bill_Oreilly]
    #21377630 -

Bill_Oreilly said:
the beatles suck

so id say the stones by default.


QFT


--------------------
a ten ton catastrophe on a sixty pound chain

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Dark_Star]
    #21377632 -

Definitely Beatles for me.

The Stones did some good stuff, but a lot of the Beatles later stuff is pure art in my mind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Dark_Star]
    #21377805 -

Dark_Star said:
The Stones, hands down. The Beatles were the biebers of the 60s.


Listen to eleanor rigby and then baby and tell me that bieber's and the beatles' music is even slightly comparable.


--------------------
:leaf: :usa:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Webster10]
    #21377813 -

Mick Jagger did this, enough said. :lol:


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: demiu5]
    #21377828 -

demiu5 said:
i don't get why people constantly compare these two bands.



that would be like comparing boz scaggs or steely dan with beck or the flaming lips


sorry, but no


I agree that there's no real point in comparing them, but being as it is a popular debate,  I think the Stones were far superior.

Their sound is much more my style.
The Beatles are amazing, and I love the majority of their songs, but I've always enjoyed the Stones more.


--------------------

“[...]the only people for me are the mad ones,
the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk,
mad to be saved,
desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes “Awww!”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Dark_Star]
    #21378089 -

peace of mind 1 said:
Mick Jagger did this, enough said. :lol:




Paul McCartney did Wings and John Lennon did Yoko.

All of them did dumb shit.

Dark_Star said:
Beatles were the sugar pop of the 60s.


Precisely how I feel about them.

Anyone was old enough to know what good music was in the 60's will tell you that the Beatles were for the radio fan-girls and the Stones were for the guys.


--------------------
Dipping Swords in Metaphors

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: The Lizard King]
    #21378120 -

The Lizard King said:
Anyone was old enough to know what good music was in the 60's will tell you that the Beatles were for the radio fan-girls and the Stones were for the guys.


Exactly.
I wasn't around in the 60's, but everyone I've talked to from that generation has said the same thing.

Aside from the Stones having a much better sound IMO, they didn't make pop, fan-girl tunes.
I really like the Beatles, but if I was alive when both bands were coming out, I most certainly wouldn't have been a Beatles at that time.


--------------------

“[...]the only people for me are the mad ones,
the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk,
mad to be saved,
desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing, but burn, burn, burn like fabulous yellow roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue centerlight pop and everybody goes “Awww!”

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: Webster10]
    #21378193 -

I have. I've heard all the Beatles stuff. Of course the Beatles are better than Beiber, but music in general was better back then. The Beatles were one of first pop bands with screaming teenage fangirls. You couldn't even hear the music at their shows. Bieber of that generation.


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: kr0nik0]
    #21378206 -

the beatles were so fucking hippy. eww


--------------------
Something there is mysteriously formed,
Existing before Heaven and Earth,
Silent, still, standing alone, unchanging,
All-pervading, unfailing,
I do not know its name; I call it tao.
If forced to give it a name, I call it
Great (ta). Being great, it flows out;
Flowing out means far-reaching;
Being far-reaching, it is said to return.

It's just a shot away..

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: The Beatles VS The Stones [Re: kr0nik0]
    #21378220 -

I like everything stones did from aftermath to tattoo you. Thats 66-81 and its alot longer than the Beatles were around. I like the beatles but find them less listenable today. At least the stones never did any gay yoko onto inspired revolution #9 shit. Let it bleed or exile on main street have a sound that doesnt seem dated. Its bluesy rock the type still played in small bars everywhere. The high light of the beatles was their psycedelic period and that whole style sounds dated now really. I never listen to sgt pepper or magical mystery tour. The stones graduated from psychedelic rock they stuck around and matured thru the 70s.
Fav Album sticky fingers / Abbey Road
And Floyd over zep.
And i like the who better than all of them.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 |  [ show all ]

Community > The Pub
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Help me choose...v Sterile 1,209 9 05/20/05 04:46 PM
by emptywisdom
* WHo here like Led Zeppelin?
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 sunshine 4,963 61 04/19/04 01:18 AM
by Phred
* Beatles Roofop Concert deadHead321 723 3 06/07/06 05:13 PM
by Rose
* Any Beatles fans.
( 1 2 all )		 The_Red_Crayon 2,032 23 03/15/04 01:13 PM
by Anonymous
* Anyone else really stoned?
( 1 2 all )		 iloveraving 1,922 32 09/01/04 04:13 PM
by browndustin
* Shroomerites in toronto at the stones
( 1 2 all )		 Ole Field Trashe 4,748 31 08/01/03 01:14 AM
by Phencyclidine
* Pink Floyd/Led Zeppelin/Grateful Dead
( 1 2 3 all )		 Gumby 6,647 50 05/18/09 11:23 PM
by OrganizedChaos
* Wow!! -------Led Zeppelin Legoulash 916 14 06/14/04 03:11 AM
by Revelation

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
3,440 topic views. 2 members, 115 guests and 151 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.036 seconds spending 0.01 seconds on 18 queries.