• From: BELGIUM
  • Registered: 2007-01-27
  • Posts: 3,403

Topic: BEATLES VERSUS ROLLING STONES

The Stones did a pretty good job in the 60ties and ealy 70ties but WHAT IS THERE CONTRIBUTION IN MUSIC LAND compared to the BEATLES? ZIP, NADA, NOTHING.
Just a bunch of travesties in the early 70ties.

ATTENTION? ATTENTION: I ADORE THE ROLLING STONES but this is A FACT.

[color=blue]- GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: TO CONQUER DEAD, YOU HAVE TO DIE[/color]   AND [color=blue] we are born to die[/color]
- MY GUITAR PLAYS EVERY STYLE = BLUES, ROCK, METAL, so I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY IT.
[color=blue]Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.[/color]

gitaardocphil's Website

2 Reply by geoaguiar (edited by geoaguiar 2009-06-09 12:17:29)

  • Registered: 2007-03-24
  • Posts: 1,108

Re: BEATLES VERSUS ROLLING STONES

I wouldn't say the Stones contributed nothing but I'd have to agree there is no comparison between the Beatles' influence on the music industry versus that of the Stones. The Beatles were much more influential. Doesn't make to the Stones insignificant just not nearly as influential IMO. I can't think of a more influential band in any era.

I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.
Elvis Costello
  • From: Renfrewshire, Scotland
  • Registered: 2006-03-04
  • Posts: 1,359

Re: BEATLES VERSUS ROLLING STONES

I used to much prefer the stones but as the years have gone by I'm leaning more towards the beatles. I am, of course, far too young to remember either band at their height.

Is anything really made up of zeros and ones??

alvee33's Website

  • From: BELGIUM
  • Registered: 2007-01-27
  • Posts: 3,403

Re: BEATLES VERSUS ROLLING STONES

That's the point.
OUR COLLECTIVE MEMORIES ARE WIDE OPEN FOR THE BEATLES WHO, BY JOVE? HAVE MADE 10 albums in 7 years?
I was about 13-14 y old and no way, STONES or BEATLES.
I can add listen to "GEMS" as "Angie" "Ruby Tuesday" "Lady Jane" "Jumpin' Jack Flash = still genial together with "Brown Sugar" and of course satisfaction.
But while thinking I was questioning myself: THE EVOLUTION OF THE STONES WAS, (sais me) rather limited, except early seventies when ALL artists where bisexual.

[color=blue]- GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: TO CONQUER DEAD, YOU HAVE TO DIE[/color]   AND [color=blue] we are born to die[/color]
- MY GUITAR PLAYS EVERY STYLE = BLUES, ROCK, METAL, so I NEED TO LEARN HOW TO PLAY IT.
[color=blue]Civilization began the first time an angry person cast a word instead of a rock.[/color]

gitaardocphil's Website

  • Registered: 2007-03-24
  • Posts: 1,108

Re: BEATLES VERSUS ROLLING STONES

Do you mean the Beatles "grew" more as artists than the Stones. I'd agree with that for sure.

I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.
Elvis Costello
  • From: Texas
  • Registered: 2007-07-31
  • Posts: 950

Re: BEATLES VERSUS ROLLING STONES

I'm gonna have to say the Beatles, even though I probably listen, casually at least, to the Rolling Stones more often. But the Beatles had a solid consecutive and consistent turn-out of top quality stuff and influence too, the Stones to me had thier best stuff early on.

All You Need is Love smile

HannahBeth's Website