View Full Version : Stones or Beatles?
Archetype
04-05-2009, 09:04 PM
Simple enough.
jemeske
04-05-2009, 09:31 PM
I went with the Stones, because I prefer to listen to their stuff today. But I would say that the Beatles are probably the more significant musical group.
BooBooBear
04-05-2009, 09:33 PM
Beatles
Swurgen
04-05-2009, 09:53 PM
Stones = overrated.
Archetype
04-05-2009, 09:54 PM
Beatles = Gay
Draven X 23
04-05-2009, 11:19 PM
The Beatles.
No Elvis choice?
BIG PIZZLE
04-05-2009, 11:20 PM
lol
The GWD
04-05-2009, 11:21 PM
The Beatles by a fucking lot.
wonderllama
04-05-2009, 11:22 PM
I'm going the Beatles, simply due to the quantity and quality of material produced in such a relatively short period. The Stones do good stuff, it's just taken longer.
Archetype
04-06-2009, 01:40 AM
I'm going the Beatles, simply due to the quantity and quality of material produced in such a relatively short period. The Stones do good stuff, it's just taken longer.
Quantity? From 63-70, The Beatles put out 13 albums. From 64-71, The Stones put out...13 albums.
Trident
04-06-2009, 01:59 AM
This is a tough one, whilst the Beatles will always remain a phenomenon with some exceptional music, for me the Rolling Stones have produced some of my favourite songs ever.
Quantum Leap
04-06-2009, 02:04 AM
Out of the two, I'd have to the take Beatles ...because there are only 2 songs by the Stones that I REALLY like (Paint it Black, Sympathy For the Devil), and though I'm not a huge fan of the Beatles, they have quite a few more that I'd say I'm really fond of.
Beetlejuice > Both of them, though.
Superhuman
04-06-2009, 02:25 AM
http://haveadayeveryday.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/beetlejuice_closeup.jpg
the creeps
04-06-2009, 02:53 AM
THE FUCKING STONES!
IdiotBrain
04-06-2009, 03:47 AM
Stones without question or hesitation.
Beatles = Gay
If your idea of manly music is Metallica, I'd rather be cornholed.
IdiotBrain
04-06-2009, 03:56 AM
How bout Pantera?
Archetype
04-06-2009, 04:08 AM
If your idea of manly music is Metallica, I'd rather be cornholed.
*looks at poll options*
I didn't realize Metallica was up there.
Hoser
04-06-2009, 04:53 AM
Never been a big Beatles fan, but I do like the Stones and they are good live.
Pharon
04-06-2009, 07:26 AM
If the question here is "what's your personal preference," then I understand. But from a contribution and influential standpoint, the Stones don't even hold a candle to the Beatles.
Alcestis
04-06-2009, 09:30 AM
Of course, Rolling Stones.
redsox39
04-06-2009, 10:02 AM
This was hard because...
Over Rated:
Beatles
Rolling Stones
Led Hindenberg
Yelram
04-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Stones suck, there I said it, you may continue now.
smahoo
04-06-2009, 12:24 PM
how could there even be a debate....The Beatles, no question
Pax Britannia
04-06-2009, 02:13 PM
I went with the Stones, because I prefer to listen to their stuff today. But I would say that the Beatles are probably the more significant musical group.
QFT
TheImpossibleMan
04-06-2009, 02:14 PM
Only a moron would vote for the Stones over the Beatles.
IdiotBrain
04-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Only a moron would suggest that people who disagree with his opinion in music is a moron.
jemeske
04-06-2009, 02:19 PM
Because personal preference is moronic?
TheImpossibleMan
04-06-2009, 02:21 PM
All music taste is subjective except for Stones vs. Beatles, in which it can be empirically proven that those who think Stones>Beatles=moron.
the creeps
04-06-2009, 02:51 PM
weren't the beatles called the first boy band ?
Archetype
04-06-2009, 03:01 PM
If the question here is "what's your personal preference," then I understand. But from a contribution and influential standpoint, the Stones don't even hold a candle to the Beatles.
Cough Monkees Cough.
Sarxos
04-06-2009, 03:05 PM
I'll take The Who, but outta those 2 it's gotta be The Beatles.
Did you post that or copy/paste?