Boxing Forums



User Tag List

Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Dislikes Dislikes:  0
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 131

Thread: Beatles or Stones?

Share/Bookmark

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisville,ky
    Posts
    1,423
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    912
    Cool Clicks

    Default Beatles or Stones?

    The only reason why I bring this topic up is because two guys at work believe the rolling stone are better. They must be high. The stones are a great rock band but that's all they are. The Beatles are so much more. They change the world and music forever. I want to see what you cats think. Please set these guys straight.

  2. #2
    El Kabong Guest

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    The Stones were waaaaaay more versitlie as a band, The Beatles were great but only branched out near the end and then as individual acts.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Up in the attic
    Posts
    26,468
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    4099
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    I think the Beatles were more diverse just in that they wern't just driven from within the blues then out into hard rock.
    The beatles could do a love song or a fun song or a rockin song or a heavy one with much different structures to the music than the stones do.

    Take for instance Michelle,compared to Helter skelter or Revolution.
    It isnt from the same music structure at all.
    The stones are great and rule but they do stick more to their set ways, as do Ac/Dc for instance, but them even more so.
    Hidden Content " border="0" />

    I can explain it.
    But I cant understand it for you.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Is this even a real question? I sincerely doubt the veracity that anyone even postulating what your 'friends' have are doing so for any other reason than to get a rise out of you. They are busting your Stones. If the Stones never existed, the world would be exactly as it is today. The Beatles? It would be a world unrecognizable to us, in a negative way. If they claim to be serious, have them take an IQ test - they probably won't even break double figures.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    12,231
    Mentioned
    155 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2403
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    its the stones
    i hate the beatles
    Remember reality is an illusion caused by a lack of alcohol .

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisville,ky
    Posts
    1,423
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    912
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Lord Al View Post
    its the stones
    i hate the beatles
    You're British and hate the Beatles? Off with his head!!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,910
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2742
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by paulwalrus View Post
    Is this even a real question? I sincerely doubt the veracity that anyone even postulating what your 'friends' have are doing so for any other reason than to get a rise out of you. They are busting your Stones. If the Stones never existed, the world would be exactly as it is today. The Beatles? It would be a world unrecognizable to us, in a negative way. If they claim to be serious, have them take an IQ test - they probably won't even break double figures.
    The Walrus was Paul. Paul died about the time of Abbey Road. The bare feet prove it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    7,899
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    The Stones were waaaaaay more versitlie as a band, The Beatles were great but only branched out near the end and then as individual acts.
    Absolutely wrong Lyle
    The Beatles played folk,big band swing,spirituals,psychedelia,straight rock n roll,country and western,et all
    The Beatles used more and more complex instrumentation when noone else was.
    I like early Stones,but no way on earth were they more versatile
    Elanor Rigby
    Your Mother Should Know
    A Day In A Life
    Act Naturally
    Let It Be
    Norweigan wood
    vs
    Satisfaction
    Sympathy For The Devil
    Brown Sugar
    I wanna be your man(written by Lennon/McCartney)
    Lets Spend The Night Together
    The Last Time

    I like the Stones before Jones snuffed it,but it isnt even close,as far as versatility

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Louisville,ky
    Posts
    1,423
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    912
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    The Stones were waaaaaay more versitlie as a band, The Beatles were great but only branched out near the end and then as individual acts.
    Absolutely wrong Lyle
    The Beatles played folk,big band swing,spirituals,psychedelia,straight rock n roll,country and western,et all
    The Beatles used more and more complex instrumentation when noone else was.
    I like early Stones,but no way on earth were they more versatile
    Elanor Rigby
    Your Mother Should Know
    A Day In A Life
    Act Naturally
    Let It Be
    Norweigan wood
    vs
    Satisfaction
    Sympathy For The Devil
    Brown Sugar
    I wanna be your man(written by Lennon/McCartney)
    Lets Spend The Night Together
    The Last Time

    I like the Stones before Jones snuffed it,but it isnt even close,as far as versatility
    Thank you. You are 100% right.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,910
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    2742
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrbig1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
    The Stones were waaaaaay more versitlie as a band, The Beatles were great but only branched out near the end and then as individual acts.
    Absolutely wrong Lyle
    The Beatles played folk,big band swing,spirituals,psychedelia,straight rock n roll,country and western,et all
    The Beatles used more and more complex instrumentation when noone else was.
    I like early Stones,but no way on earth were they more versatile
    Elanor Rigby
    Your Mother Should Know
    A Day In A Life
    Act Naturally
    Let It Be
    Norweigan wood
    vs
    Satisfaction
    Sympathy For The Devil
    Brown Sugar
    I wanna be your man(written by Lennon/McCartney)
    Lets Spend The Night Together
    The Last Time

    I like the Stones before Jones snuffed it,but it isnt even close,as far as versatility
    Thank you. You are 100% right.
    enlighten me. When did the Beatles do Country and Western? And did they ever do a straight ahead twelve bar blues?

    They weren't too far behind with the insrumentation and psychedelia (Their Satanic Majesties Request ), they just didn't stick with it.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    7,899
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by CGM View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mrbig1 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey View Post
    Absolutely wrong Lyle
    The Beatles played folk,big band swing,spirituals,psychedelia,straight rock n roll,country and western,et all
    The Beatles used more and more complex instrumentation when noone else was.
    I like early Stones,but no way on earth were they more versatile
    Elanor Rigby
    Your Mother Should Know
    A Day In A Life
    Act Naturally
    Let It Be
    Norweigan wood
    vs
    Satisfaction
    Sympathy For The Devil
    Brown Sugar
    I wanna be your man(written by Lennon/McCartney)
    Lets Spend The Night Together
    The Last Time

    I like the Stones before Jones snuffed it,but it isnt even close,as far as versatility
    Thank you. You are 100% right.
    enlighten me. When did the Beatles do Country and Western? And did they ever do a straight ahead twelve bar blues?

    They weren't too far behind with the insrumentation and psychedelia (Their Satanic Majesties Request ), they just didn't stick with it.
    Act Naturally was a straight C&W song that became a C&W hit by a different artist

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    253
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    0
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Stones sucks. Beatles rules!

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    843
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrbig1 View Post
    The only reason why I bring this topic up is because two guys at work believe the rolling stone are better. They must be high. The stones are a great rock band but that's all they are. The Beatles are so much more. They change the world and music forever. I want to see what you cats think. Please set these guys straight.
    I gotta say that when I was a kid, I liked the Beatles better. After all the music the Stones have done up until now, they've taken the goods. Songs like Angie, Undercover of the Night, Out of Tears, Street Fighting Man, Sympathy for the Devil, Paint It Black, Get Offa My Cloud, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Waiting on a Friend, Mixed Emotions, Anybody Seen My Baby, Let's Spend the Night Together, and Satisfaction.

    For me, the Beatles are too syrupy by and large: Strawberry Fields, Penny Lane, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    172
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    843
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    Quote Originally Posted by mrbig1 View Post
    The only reason why I bring this topic up is because two guys at work believe the rolling stone are better. They must be high. The stones are a great rock band but that's all they are. The Beatles are so much more. They change the world and music forever. I want to see what you cats think. Please set these guys straight.
    I should make sure to answer the question posed: Beatles or Stones. Personally, in terms of longevity and staying power, I'd have to say The Stones. Not only are they still around, but they are usually the touring act which makes the most in each year they tour as far as I know.

    The Stones, all the way.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Up in the attic
    Posts
    26,468
    Mentioned
    447 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Punch Power
    4099
    Cool Clicks

    Default Re: Beatles or Stones?

    http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_3IUASoqfM

    Check this wicked version by an Aussie band it really gets going.
    Hidden Content " border="0" />

    I can explain it.
    But I cant understand it for you.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Similar Threads

  1. Tonsil Stones (kinda gross)
    By TheChosenOne in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 08-30-2008, 12:17 PM
  2. BEATLES FANS - CHECK DIS OUT!!!
    By smashup in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-03-2008, 04:44 AM
  3. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 04-21-2007, 10:14 PM
  4. Beatles..Yellow Submarine-full film here
    By smashup in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-15-2007, 09:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

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




Boxing | Boxing Photos | Boxing News | Boxing Forum | Boxing Rankings

Copyright © 2000 - 2024 Saddo Boxing - Boxing