Classic arguments

Films, albums, random internet videos.

Classic arguments

Postby p1nkfl0yd1an on Sat Jan 28, 2006 12:59 am

Throughout musical history there have always undoubtedly been arguments as to what bands are better than the rest. A few however constantly get compared to each other. What are your thoughts?

The Beatles Vs. The Rolling Stones

They were both hugely popular around the same time so this is a classic one to start out with.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
p1nkfl0yd1an
Pheropod
Pheropod
 
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby YokaI on Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:37 am

The Beatles, their music was more original and took alot of creativity. Alot of bands rip off their style but do it horribly. I really like neither bands that much, however beatles are farr better that the rolling stones.
YokaI
Forum Goer Elite™
Forum Goer Elite™
 
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2004 12:38 am

Postby -[Getty]- on Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:58 am

I have never really liked the rolling stones that much, but beatles stuff, lets just say I can get jiggy with it. oh yea. :?
source-maps wrote:a Quad Core CPU , arent that like 4 cpus?


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Club No Release
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
User avatar
-[Getty]-
Sir Post-a-lot
Sir Post-a-lot
 
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Postby Rocket_Robinhood on Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:08 am

the rolling stones were never as adaptable as the beatles.

Pwned - A Society of Gamers

Sign up and help me get free stuff!
User avatar
Rocket_Robinhood
Veteran
Veteran
 
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 10:36 pm
Location: Toronto Ontario

Postby dragonfliet on Sat Jan 28, 2006 4:42 am

Bah, while I hate to jump on the bandwagon, my hats off to the beattles. I think it's the sheer originality and diversity in styles that wins them the game for me. From "I wanna hold your hand" bubble gum pop to "hey jude" and "eleanor rigsby" type ballads, Just Great.

Now the stones, while fantastic in their own right, and a completely different kind of rock (moving away from "Rock and Roll" that you could dance to (which died around the time of the "brittish invasion") to the "Rock" that you mostly just around and nod your head to that we're familiar with today.). Also, Songs like "Sympathy for the Devil" scream originality and interesting lyric writing for a new age, and the BRILLIANT cover of Otis Reddings "(I can't get no) Satisfaction" really showing their roots. Wait, I just wrote one long, awkward sentance. Oh well, despite the wonderfulness of their songs, and how it's very difficult to compare the two contrasting types of rock, I think I pick the beattles simply for their versatility. Also because they didn't put dumb ass records like the stones did in the early 90's. A Bigger Bang is pretty decent though.

~Jason
Image
User avatar
dragonfliet
Veteran
Veteran
 
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:28 am
Location: Houston...le sigh

Postby mike-o on Sat Jan 28, 2006 3:37 pm

If someone was like, "hey mike, take one of these two records, beatles or rolling stones", id take the rolling stones one. I think that they're songs rock more and that they're just plain better musicians. However, map props to the beatles because they were big time pioneers.
User avatar
mike-o
Sir Post-a-lot
Sir Post-a-lot
 
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 12:18 am

Postby p1nkfl0yd1an on Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:31 am

supposedly the first time the Stones played a live concert mick jagger said something like "i hope no one mistakes us for a rock and roll outfit."


They'd planned to be a blues group.
All in all you're just another brick in the wall
p1nkfl0yd1an
Pheropod
Pheropod
 
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby dragonfliet on Mon Jan 30, 2006 4:33 am

Interesting. They failed miserably, not that I mind, but it was a good attempt.

~Jason
Image
User avatar
dragonfliet
Veteran
Veteran
 
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:28 am
Location: Houston...le sigh

Return to Media

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users