|
Non-EDM: Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
|
View this Thread in Original format
| mentalbarter |
| Stones > Beatles |
|
|
| shades_of_gray |
Early stones was really good
its funny because the 2 groups come from 2 different backgrounds, the stones came from a well off background and a lot of them are very educated, wheras the beatles had a kinda rougher upbringing and had no real qualifications......its weird in hindsight that the stones music had a more rougher edge to it.....but the beatles sound was more polished
alot of the beatles early stuff was good as well, ie help there music was based on harmonys.....but i Prefer the stones |
|
|
| skip |
rolling stones suck pretty much IMO
but beatles on the other hand is a great band (altho they've made loads of crap too) |
|
|
| Protege |
| Gotta respect the Stones for being together for as long as they have. The Beatles were only together for like 6-7 years or so, which might be long by todays standards but still it was over pretty quick. |
|
|
| stren |
| beatles all the way, i hate the stones |
|
|
| Nayil |
| quote: | Originally posted by mentalbarter
Stones > Beatles |
|
|
|
| Fundamental |
| My Dad is a massive Beatles fan, and my Mum just loves the Stones. So I have to stay completely neutral under danger of death. :p |
|
|
| Desty Nova |
| I voted Beetles. :) |
|
|
|
|
