Arcade Fire Vs. The Rolling Stones

[WillWill1989]

I don't think you can compare the two. Both different bands. And different eras as well...

[smrtboi2120]

two different eras and genres, but rolling stone because they established themselves longer as of now

[BlueNote]

Stones. Easy.

[altcountryguitar]

Shouldn't even have to dignify this question with an answer. Got no problems with our lovely pals from Canada, but are you joking or what? Unless you're seriously and dangerously obsessed with the hurdy-gurdy, this is as nolo contendere as they come.

[AwesomeDavid107]

The Rolling Stones are classics. I haven't heard much of Arcade Fire, but what I have heard is pretty good. The Rolling Stones are just a little better.

[Hayden]

With all of the Arcade Fire threads, I thought I'd bump this


Any new votes?
_________________
~Hayden
Who's Masquerade - http://www44.zippyshare.com/v/49575666/file.html

[Eggman/Walrus/Taxman]

I probably voted for the Stones, it's been a long time though.

I still think the Stones are better.

If Arcade Fire can keep up their streak of great albums, then we'll see.

Because the Stones' streak of great albums, from their debut to Exile, was simply astonishing.
_________________
(space blank until I find suitable controversial quote)

[lethalnezzle]

The Stones, no contest.
_________________
My New Album

I've just got so much love in my heart.

[unwound]

Stones. They are an all-time great band. Arcade Fire is not.

[lightmyway]

The Stones, obviously... I really like Arcade Fire, one of my favorite bands around these days, but they have a long way to go before they're Stones-level.