NationStates Jolt Archive

The big debate!

Who are better, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.

Poll Coming!!!!111!!!

Me: The Beatles, they are better, period.

If someone had shot Mick or Keith back around 1979 or so, and the Stones had never made another album, this might be a discussion worth having, but the Stones have destroyed themselves in the years since then as far as I'm concerned.

If someone had shot Mick or Keith back around 1979 or so, and the Stones had never made another album, this might be a discussion worth having, but the Stones have destroyed themselves in the years since then as far as I'm concerned.

Mick just agrivates me so much hes really milking them, Keith is allright though.

Mick just agrivates me so much hes really milking them, Keith is allright though.
But just like McCartney and Lennon, neither Mick or Keith is half as good on their own. They need each other. If one had died 25 years ago, there would have been none of the recent crap that the Stones have put out.

But just like McCartney and Lennon, neither Mick or Keith is half as good on their own. They need each other. If one had died 25 years ago, there would have been none of the recent crap that the Stones have put out.

I suppose, but at least when they play their old stuff, the concerts are still pretty good.

Honestly, I prefer the Stones.

Honestly, I prefer the Stones.

You...sicken....me

You...sicken....me

Why should that offend you? The Stones and the Beatles have a completley different sound, and I tend to perfer the sound of the former over the latter.

Beatles are, in my eyes, much more influential, legendary, and philosophical.

And I don't even like listening to their music.

Why should that offend you? The Stones and the Beatles have a completley different sound, and I tend to perfer the sound of the former over the latter.

Don't worry I wasn't offended I was only joking about.

Stones. Even though The Beatles played good music, they had a little too much power over the teenaged girl demographic- I fully lay the blame for the eventual creation of "boy bands" on the Beatles. That makes them worse than Vanilla Ice in my book.

Beatles.
For some reason I have the tune one of their lowest rated songs "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" stuck in my brain.

Stones. Even though The Beatles played good music, they had a little too much power over the teenaged girl demographic- I fully lay the blame for the eventual creation of "boy bands" on the Beatles. That makes them worse than Vanilla Ice in my book.

It wasn't their fault, there were actually loads of bands who hade a huge affect on the teenage demographic before them. Including elvis, and buddy holly to name a few.

Stones.

The Beattles were boring and their singing was too expressionless.

Both groups are pretty boring though.

why isn't Bob Dylan on the list? He influenced both bands, hell he introduced marijuana to the Beatles.

Oh well, I voted Beatles.

The Beatles.

Not only have the Rolling Stones gone on to make a complete sham of themselves, but the Beatles wrote two of the greatest songs ever.

Let It Be and While My Guitar Gently Weeps > Everything else ever written.

:p

It wasn't their fault, there were actually loads of bands who hade a huge affect on the teenage demographic before them. Including elvis, and buddy holly to name a few.
Yeah, might as well blame Mozart if you want to get really silly about it.

Yeah, might as well blame Mozart if you want to get really silly about it.

Or Jesus.

The Beatles, no doubt about it.