Ok, it's a question as old as the hills, but who do you prefer: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
Ok, it's a question as old as the hills, but who do you prefer: The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
To be or not to be? That is the point. - Harry Nilsson.
The Beatles
"Corn Flakes pissed in. You ranted. Mission accomplished. Thread closed."
-Cozy 3:16-
Revolver alone settles it.
The Prog Corner
The Stones are the band I've never really cared for other than a few songs....
"Corn Flakes pissed in. You ranted. Mission accomplished. Thread closed."
-Cozy 3:16-
longevity rules.... The Stones.
Beatles.
Not even close.
And if there were a god, I think it very unlikely that he would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence - Russell
Stones did a couple of good albums (from Beggars to let it Bleed). I way prefer the Who.
Beatles were ground breaking and made ever lasting tunes in several genres.
Beatles
then The Who
and then the Stones...way down the road.
I am fond of the albums from Some Girls thru Emotional Rescue. I like me some "disco" Stones.
The Kinks. But between those two? Definitely The Beatles. I never got The Stones, it wasn't really pop music, it wasn't really hard rock, it wasn't really soul and it wasn't really R & B, it seemed to be a combo of all of the above.
If I have to choose, Rolling Stones.
Where the Beatles were artists/innovators, the Stones were artisans/synthesists. I go with Mick/Keef & Co. (up to '72 with a couple of exceptions); I rarely spin Beatles LPs, good as they are.
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Speaking of which...
http://www.msn.com/en-us/music/news/...id=ansmsnent11
Hell, they ain't even old-timey ! - Homer Stokes
Bookmarks