- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
Beatles vs. Stones--Who's The Greatest?
- Thread starter SBRPhillyFlyers
- Start date
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
Why?
Besides longevity, there isn't one area where the Stones come out on top.
Cultural Impact, Influence on Other Bands, Popularity, Musical Ability and Songwriting all go to the Fab Four. AINEC.
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
Bullshit. Stones had a HUGE cultural impact. Everything you mentioned boils down to one thing basically-popularity. The Beatles do beat the Stones as far as popularity goes, other than that the Stones own them in every other capacity.
Live performances, variations of music(the Stones played, at different periods, reggae, disco, bluegrass, psychedelic, blues, R & B, the list is practically endless), longevity.
The Stones are the superior band in almost every other way except popularity.
I personally like the Stones better, but the Beatles are the greatest band of all time....
Just go to the Mirage Hotel....
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
Delusional much? To say that the Stones had a bigger cultural impact than the Beatles is just ludicrous. You can argue which band was better, but you just lose every shred of credibility when you say The Stones are more culturally significant.
As for the greatest artists of all time, here is what Rolling Stone had to say:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/100-greatest-artists-of-all-time-19691231/bob-dylan-20110420
Stones didn't crack the Top Three.
Personally, overall, I think the Beatles sucked. I think they were the most overrated band in history.
I liked some of their songs, but a lot of their stuff was pure shit.
I liked some of their songs, but a lot of their stuff was pure shit.
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
Reading comprehension skills are a great skill to acquire and one you obviously do not possess. Show me where I EVER stated the Stones had a BIGGER cultural impact than the Beatles. You can't. What I said was that the Stones had a HUGE cultural impact. Never did I say it was bigger than the Beatles.
As for Rolling Stone magazine and cultural impact........who was the magazine named after?
You want to see cultural impact? Check this out...
A. I have many flaws, but poor reading skills are not among them. Actually, my reading ability has always been tops among my peers since I began reading at the age of three. In fact, I achieved a perfect score on the Reading Test on the ACT.
B. Let me demonstrate my reading skills. You said, "The Beatles do beat the Stones as far as popularity goes, other than that the Stones own them in every other capacity." So every other capacity other than popularity would include cultural impact, no?
C. Do some research before you spout off bullshit about things you are clueless about. You have to be online to post here; take advantage of that so you don't look stupid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_Stone#Beginnings
D. It is obvious you started this thread to try and prove to yourself or someone else that you were right about your overrated estimation of the Stones. Stop acting butthurt because you are being proved wrong.
E. Duke fucking blows.
- Mar 24, 2014
- 216
- 8
- 0
You clearly have reading comprehension issues. Nowhere in your reply do you prove your point. In fact, you prove mine, as I state clearly the Beatles do beat the Stones in popularity. Popularity is part of cultural impact, genius. You can't have a cultural impact if no one follows you.
Other than popularity though, where do the Beatles beat the Stones?
Another Mad Jack genius I see.
