Beatles Vs. Stones

Rob The Badger · 07 Jan 2004, 20:35

The Rolling Stones are overrated.

Chris · 07 Jan 2004, 21:24

Although I am tempted to agree with you Rob, they have produced some good work. Especially when you consider it from the time it was written rather than comparing it to the music that has followed it and the bands of today.

Rob The Badger · 07 Jan 2004, 21:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

Although I am tempted to agree with you Rob, they have produced some good work. Especially when you consider it from the time it was written rather than comparing it to the music that has followed it and the bands of today.

Quite, they did produce some excellent stuff, but some people put them on par with The Beatles and to be honest, I don't buy that.

*AndyK* · 10 Jan 2004, 01:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

The Rolling Stones are overrated.

From your set perhaps Rob, but they are in my opinion quite simply the greatest Rock 'N' Roll Band in the world bar none... out to have fun, technically Keith and Ronnie are two of the best Guitarists in the world and they have provided much more influence to the Rock World than any other band.

The Beatles were simply the greatest "pop" band in the world, who sadly disappeared up their own hype. that's not to say that they didn't provide a similar influence on the pop world though.... the difference being pop is oly one letter away from pap

Rob The Badger · 10 Jan 2004, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyK

pop is oly one letter away from pap

That's just wrong. There wouldn't have been a Rolling Stones without The Beatles.

*AndyK* · 10 Jan 2004, 20:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyK

pop is oly one letter away from pap

That's just wrong. There wouldn't have been a Rolling Stones without The Beatles.

Errr.... nooooo sorry to say you're wrong there....

While the Beatles were playing in Germany, the Stones were schelping their music and learning their skills round the pubs and clubs of West London.

End of the day comparing The Stones with The Beatles is like comparing Apples and Oranges, their both fruit but different kinds of fruit each with their own positives.... personally I prefer the Bitter-sweet Apples of the Stones to the sickly sweet Oranges of The Beatles, but each toi their own

Rob The Badger · 11 Jan 2004, 02:04

Elenor Rigby was better and more original than everything the Stones ever released. But I stand by the fact that Sticky Fingers is an incredible record. . .maybe I'm biased 'cause Warhol did the artwork. . .anyway, as you picked up on, it's all subjective anyway.

*AndyK* · 11 Jan 2004, 21:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob The Badger

Elenor Rigby was better and more original than everything the Stones ever released. But I stand by the fact that Sticky Fingers is an incredible record. . .maybe I'm biased 'cause Warhol did the artwork. . .anyway, as you picked up on, it's all subjective anyway.

It's just that my subjectiveness is more correct than yours Rob that's all

Sympathy For The Devil - far more original and years and years ahead of it's time

Rob The Badger · 11 Jan 2004, 21:19

Looks like I'm going to have to play the Ace doesn't it. . .

Ladies and gentleman, I give you. . .

*AndyK* · 11 Jan 2004, 21:25

I'll see your Ace and riase you..............

Rob The Badger · 12 Jan 2004, 21:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by AndyK

I'll see your Ace and riase you..............

7

Check mate.

**The Flying Mouse** · 12 Jan 2004, 21:19

This was going off topic on The Meat's 2003 thread.
Beatles Vs. Stones debate split to new thread and poll added.
Carry on folks

*AndyK* · 12 Jan 2004, 22:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE FLYING MOUSE

This was going off topic on The Meat's 2003 thread.
Beatles Vs. Stones debate split to new thread and poll added.
Carry on folks

Thanks!

Neck and Neck I see..... But then that's the two main protaganists of the off topicness who've voted probably

Chris · 12 Jan 2004, 22:09

I would ahve to vote stones because

(and I am getting ready to hide before saying this!)

I do not like the Beatles!!

*AndyK* · 12 Jan 2004, 22:11

Dont' worry Chris...... Rob The Beatley Badger is 'armless

(and if he gets really nasty we could always gas him

)

Chris · 12 Jan 2004, 22:12

I am not worried about anyones reaction.

I once said that on liverpool Docks outside the Beatle's Museum. An nothing happened.

Although Mr. and Mrs. Mouse seemed to start moving away from me very very quickly just in case!!!!!

Rob The Badger · 12 Jan 2004, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris

I do not like the Beatles!!

*slap*

**The Flying Mouse** · 12 Jan 2004, 22:17

Yeah, but Chris, it did cost me a pound to find out the exact location of the original Cavern club for you

And I could tell how impressed you were with that wall

*AndyK* · 12 Jan 2004, 22:19

lol if Chris' impression on the wall is waht I think it is then I'll gladly give you that pound back out of my own pocket!!!

Chris · 12 Jan 2004, 22:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by THE FLYING MOUSE

Yeah, but Chris, it did cost me a pound to find out the exact location of the original Cavern club for you

And I could tell how impressed you were with that wall

It was a very good wall. lot of very nice pointing and laying skills involved!!!

Shame some silly beggar had writtena load of names all over it!

Just out of interest. Are the Stones on that wall??

**The Flying Mouse** · 12 Jan 2004, 22:25

No Andy.He didn't do an Ozzy at the Alamo impression

The wall is a wall (obviously) that has the name of a band/artist who has played the Cavern on every brick.
It's very, erm, interesting

evil nickname · 12 Jan 2004, 23:14

The Beatles may be ground-breaking, and what not, but 95% of their stuff do absolutely nothing for me.
I'm not much of a Stones fan, but I'd take them over the Beatles any day.

Rob The Badger · 12 Jan 2004, 23:24

You're all insane. INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE I TELLZ YA!

tbuck · 12 Jan 2004, 23:24

I've got to side w/ Rob here, the Beatles were much more influential, IMO. Maybe this is just my American perspective, but here that is a given.
T

sherrie87 · 13 Jan 2004, 00:46

Yes the Beatles may have been more influential, but the fact is that they are much more of a "pop" band. If you are looking for "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band", look no further than Mick and the boys. I own a lot of Beatles records, but I actually listen to my Stones records, while most of my Beatles stuff sits untouched.

Sherrie

View Poll Results: So what do you think?
Beatles	6	42.86%
Stones.	8	57.14%
Voters: 14. You may not vote on this poll

07 Jan 2004, 20:35	#1
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	Beatles Vs. Stones The Rolling Stones are overrated.

07 Jan 2004, 21:24	#2
Chris Mega Loafer Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Somewhere in the real world. Posts: 7,527	Although I am tempted to agree with you Rob, they have produced some good work. Especially when you consider it from the time it was written rather than comparing it to the music that has followed it and the bands of today.

11 Jan 2004, 02:04	#7
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	Elenor Rigby was better and more original than everything the Stones ever released. But I stand by the fact that Sticky Fingers is an incredible record. . .maybe I'm biased 'cause Warhol did the artwork. . .anyway, as you picked up on, it's all subjective anyway.

11 Jan 2004, 21:19	#9
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	Looks like I'm going to have to play the Ace doesn't it. . . Ladies and gentleman, I give you. . .

11 Jan 2004, 21:25	#10
AndyK Relentless Join Date: 21.11.2003 Location: Over the top..... seeing what's on the other side Posts: 18,694	I'll see your Ace and riase you..............

12 Jan 2004, 21:19	#12
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	This was going off topic on The Meat's 2003 thread. Beatles Vs. Stones debate split to new thread and poll added. Carry on folks

12 Jan 2004, 22:09	#14
Chris Mega Loafer Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Somewhere in the real world. Posts: 7,527	I would ahve to vote stones because (and I am getting ready to hide before saying this!) I do not like the Beatles!!

12 Jan 2004, 22:11	#15
AndyK Relentless Join Date: 21.11.2003 Location: Over the top..... seeing what's on the other side Posts: 18,694	Dont' worry Chris...... Rob The Beatley Badger is 'armless (and if he gets really nasty we could always gas him )

12 Jan 2004, 22:12	#16
Chris Mega Loafer Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Somewhere in the real world. Posts: 7,527	I am not worried about anyones reaction. I once said that on liverpool Docks outside the Beatle's Museum. An nothing happened. Although Mr. and Mrs. Mouse seemed to start moving away from me very very quickly just in case!!!!!

12 Jan 2004, 22:17	#18
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	Yeah, but Chris, it did cost me a pound to find out the exact location of the original Cavern club for you And I could tell how impressed you were with that wall

12 Jan 2004, 22:19	#19
AndyK Relentless Join Date: 21.11.2003 Location: Over the top..... seeing what's on the other side Posts: 18,694	lol if Chris' impression on the wall is waht I think it is then I'll gladly give you that pound back out of my own pocket!!!

12 Jan 2004, 22:25	#21
The Flying Mouse Armed ba$tard and Jo's other half. Join Date: 06.08.2002 Location: In the middle of nowhere near the end of the line. Posts: 16,104	No Andy.He didn't do an Ozzy at the Alamo impression The wall is a wall (obviously) that has the name of a band/artist who has played the Cavern on every brick. It's very, erm, interesting

12 Jan 2004, 23:14	#22
evil nickname Guest Join Date: 19.04.2003 Posts: 2,238	The Beatles may be ground-breaking, and what not, but 95% of their stuff do absolutely nothing for me. I'm not much of a Stones fan, but I'd take them over the Beatles any day.

12 Jan 2004, 23:24	#23
Rob The Badger Too sexy for this post Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 2,895	You're all insane. INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE I TELLZ YA!

12 Jan 2004, 23:24	#24
tbuck Super Loafer Join Date: 14.04.2002 Location: USA Posts: 355	I've got to side w/ Rob here, the Beatles were much more influential, IMO. Maybe this is just my American perspective, but here that is a given. T

13 Jan 2004, 00:46	#25
sherrie87 Mega Loafer Join Date: 20.02.2003 Location: Largo, FL Posts: 1,262	Yes the Beatles may have been more influential, but the fact is that they are much more of a "pop" band. If you are looking for "The World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band", look no further than Mick and the boys. I own a lot of Beatles records, but I actually listen to my Stones records, while most of my Beatles stuff sits untouched. Sherrie