+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Who ROCKED harder, Beetles VS Stones

  1. #1
    FORT Fogey Leftcoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,243

    Who ROCKED harder, Beetles VS Stones

    The Rolling Stones, IMO.

    Beatles, as entertaining as they were/are were, opted to be more cerebral than the Rolling Stones.

    The Stones, throughout, had/have an an immediacy that the Beatles lacked.

  2. #2
    FORT Fogey razorbacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,481

    Re: Who ROCKED harder, Beetles VS Stones

    If The Stones had a singer that could actually hit some notes during a Live performance they would have gotten my attention more. Give me The Beatles in a landslide.

  3. #3
    Anarchist AJane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Charming
    Posts
    9,353

    Re: Who ROCKED harder, Beetles VS Stones

    Ah, but razor...the question was who rocked harder. Nobody rocks harder than Keith Richards...don't think he has an equal to being the living, breathing human equivalent to rock 'n' roll.
    All my life, I have felt destiny tugging at my sleeve.~ Thursday Next
    I don't want to "go with the flow". The flow just washes you down the drain. I want to fight the flow.- Henry Rollins
    All this spiritual talk is great and everything...but at the end of the day, there's nothing like a pair of skinny jeans. - Jillian Michaels

  4. #4
    FORT Fogey razorbacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    9,481

    Re: Who ROCKED harder, Beetles VS Stones

    AJane, are you entirely sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Keith Richards is living & breathing?

    Frankly I think George Harrison could play rings around Keith & for that matter so could Brian Jones, but alas, he didn't live long enough to get to legendary status.

  5. #5
    FORT Fogey Leftcoaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    3,243

    Re: Who ROCKED harder, Beetles VS Stones

    Quote Originally Posted by razorbacker View Post
    AJane, are you entirely sure, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Keith Richards is living & breathing?
    That's too funny.

    It occurred to me, however, shortly after originally posting, that either the question I posed, or the limits that I allowed in the question were off-base.

    I actually, over the period they existed, preferred The Beatles over the Rolling Stones, but much of the music I admire from the Stones came AFTER the Beatles were a thing of the past. How do you compare in that manner? In my opinion, you don't.

    In order to fairly compare, at least between these two bands, I think you'd have to compare them head to head, as they were putting out content at the same moment in time.

    I, as an afterthought thought of other bands who may've rocked harder than these two during the same period, depending on definition and perception, but that didn't occur to me in my addle-minded posting state, so I guess Beatles vs. Stones it is.

    Paused a few to reconsider, and I'd still side with the Stones, though I preferred The Beatles at the time, and in some manner always will.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.