Best Ever Albums

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Fri, 6 Apr 2012 06:35:53 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 04/06/2012 10:35

sethmadsen wrote:

I agree with this wholeheartedly. I feel The Beatles are obviously the winners when it comes to being artistic. Stones are much better rockers though.

Overall Beatles by far though.

I have this same issue when saying what my favorite band is today.

It's kinda like Radiohead vs. Nirvana. Nirvana rocks, but doesn't have the artistic depth that Radiohead has.

Radiohead and Nirvana are about equal to me. Each has produced at least one astonishing masterpiece.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

sethmadsen — Thu, 5 Apr 2012 20:58:20 GMT

Author: sethmadsen

Posted: 04/06/2012 00:58

Captain_Dude wrote:

The Beatles, definitely.

However, to me, it's like apples and oranges. They're two totally different sounds, objectives, and attitudes...I hate to compare them.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

lancashirearab — Thu, 5 Apr 2012 14:37:14 GMT

Author: lancashirearab

Posted: 04/05/2012 18:37

I have recently been buying Rolling Stones albums and they have made some great albums. However, I have already got two or three that are only alright. The Beatles didn't do alright.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Hayden — Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:30:13 GMT

Author: Hayden

Posted: 04/01/2012 17:30

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman wrote:

And I guess The Velvet Underground, The Magic Band, Sun Ra, and The Red Crayola never existed, right?

In what way are Sun Ra & Red Krayola up to standards with the Beatles or Velvet Underground? Taking a leaf outta Scaruffi's book.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

itsit — Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:28:37 GMT

Author: itsit

Posted: 04/01/2012 17:28

Radiohead are good but not Beatles good.

And the VU only had 4 true albums, not fair to compare them to 13 albums!

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Sun, 1 Apr 2012 13:21:07 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 04/01/2012 17:21

JTpleaseDONTbeTAKEN wrote:

The only band that can truly stand up to the Beatles would be radiohead

And I guess The Velvet Underground, The Magic Band, Sun Ra, and The Red Crayola never existed, right?

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

JTpleaseDONTbeTAKEN — Sun, 1 Apr 2012 12:26:34 GMT

Author: JTpleaseDONTbeTAKEN

Posted: 04/01/2012 16:26

The only band that can truly stand up to the Beatles would be radiohead

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

VADERBREWING — Sun, 1 Apr 2012 02:37:02 GMT

Author: VADERBREWING

Posted: 04/01/2012 06:37

Thanks for the comments on page 1 GARY. I cant go into the same depth as that...I'm for the most part only good for sarcasm that can't quite be taken seriosly because of mispellings and typos. I was really curios what people would comment about this battle.

Were the Beatles broken up before the Lennon murder?

I've commented on the Beatles before, I love'em, and their albums are tight. And I give them the edge over the Stones for that. I would note this however, the Stones have songs that I am more likely to play weather by myself or hosting if I were not going with playing whole albums.

As far as a frontman goes, I'm thinking jagger, I think for the Beatlmania it was a whole band appeal. But my god what insane popularity they had.

Gotta go, just heard a gunshot. Don't worry, it was far away.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Happy — Sun, 1 Apr 2012 00:56:28 GMT

Author: Happy

Posted: 04/01/2012 04:56

I love them both, but I had to go with the Beatles.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Patman360 — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 06:39:50 GMT

Author: Patman360

Posted: 03/31/2012 10:39

The Beatles hands down, feel they have a stronger discography than not just the Stones but probably most, if not all bands

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 01:51:23 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 03/31/2012 05:51

junodog4 wrote:

I'll admit the Stones have become bloated since Tattoo You (and really, since Some Girls). However, I still really respect their work, and they find their way into my CD player often.

That said, it's the Beatles. C'mon...

Voted Beatles.

Put the Stones up against Dylan or Pink Floyd...

Yeah, Tattoo You was amazing, and after that they couldn't make anything even nearly as good.

Nobody can be put up against Dylan. Not even the Beatles. Not even Pink Floyd. Or Beefheart.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

junodog4 — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:37:02 GMT

Author: junodog4

Posted: 03/31/2012 03:37

I'll admit the Stones have become bloated since Tattoo You (and really, since Some Girls). However, I still really respect their work, and they find their way into my CD player often.

That said, it's the Beatles. C'mon...

Voted Beatles.

Put the Stones up against Dylan or Pink Floyd...

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

BlueNote — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 23:14:36 GMT

Author: BlueNote

Posted: 03/31/2012 03:14

The Stones.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Error Finn — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 15:47:02 GMT

Author: Error Finn

Posted: 03/30/2012 19:47

If The Beatles had continued career in a band, they would have done at some point in a weak album ... At the latest troubled 1980s.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Eggman/Walrus/Taxman — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 09:33:50 GMT

Author: Eggman/Walrus/Taxman

Posted: 03/30/2012 13:33

The Beatles.

Because Sgt. Pepper is better than Satanic Majesties
Because they made the White Album, but the Stones didn't make anything that good
And while we're at it, Revolver also beats every Stones album
And while we're at it, Tomorrow Never Knows beats every Stones song
Though not by a mile
Only slightly
But still
The Beatles do beat the Stones.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

TrekkiELO — Fri, 30 Mar 2012 01:35:47 GMT

Author: TrekkiELO

Posted: 03/30/2012 05:35

The Beatles

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

AwesomeDavid107 — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 22:25:56 GMT

Author: AwesomeDavid107

Posted: 03/24/2012 02:25

I will admit The Beatles are better, but to me personally I'll give it to The Stones.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

Cryptozoologist — Thu, 4 Aug 2011 12:29:41 GMT

Author: Cryptozoologist

Posted: 08/04/2011 16:29

hairymarx1 wrote:

Captain_Dude wrote:

GARY wrote:

But I also would only place about 4 bands on the Stones level for second place.

Yep. The Beatles just are on a tier all by themselves.

Why?

Oh, Jesus Christ, not you again.

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

RFNAPLES — Wed, 3 Aug 2011 21:14:29 GMT

Author: RFNAPLES

Posted: 08/04/2011 01:14

The Beatles

Re: Beatles vs. Stones

mooseboy101 — Wed, 3 Aug 2011 16:22:41 GMT

Author: mooseboy101

Posted: 08/03/2011 20:22

an_outlaw wrote:

hairymarx1 wrote:

Captain_Dude wrote:

GARY wrote:

But I also would only place about 4 bands on the Stones level for second place.

Yep. The Beatles just are on a tier all by themselves.

Why?

Dangerous question there. Best we didn't ask those questions and let it be.

I get it, a pun.