?>


Entertainment & Media



We're gonna need a bigger boat.
This Is The Very First Edition Of The Battle Of The Rock Bands!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Posted September 9th by Big One 100
View Source Report Thread Views

Welcome to the very first edition of the battle of the rock bands. Now to get things started with our very first battle it's the iconic fab four : The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones Who do you guys think would win this one. Leave your comments below .

There are 10 Replies

is this strictly unarmed, or will weapons be available/allowed?

Posted September 9th by Pirate_Ninja
View Source Quote Report

the beatles are trash, so the rolling stones win musically. they're also a bunch of hippie wimps, so the rolling stones also win in a physical fight

Posted September 9th by poptart!
View Source Quote Report

Rolling Stones are kinda like the Beatles sans any creativity or artistic evolution, with a “look how hard and rebellious I am!” gimmick that is somehow supposed to make up for their generic, uninteresting music and lyrics.

I’ve also just spent too much time with middle aged, wannabe-macho southern/classic rock assholes who hate the Beatles but love the Stones for some ungodly reason. I actually do like a few Stones songs though.

Posted October 26th by pacman
View Source Quote Report

I don't hate the Stones. And I also tend to think the Beatles are a tad overrated. But I also think there's been this weird over-correction to that, wherein I think some have managed to somehow make the Beatles underrated.

I'm not someone who thinks the Beatles are the greatest of all-time, but I also think of just how many hits they made, and how many of their songs I genuinely like. And when I think about what ultimately a short period of time all that music happened in, it's kind of incredible. I also think the Beatles did pioneer a number of things, or popularized many other things. They don't exist in a vacuum. It's hard to imagine the Beatles without the Stones existing, or Dylan, or the Beach Boys. All of those greats really sorta pushed each other. I appreciate the writing style of John Lennon, too. The humor and relative weirdness for pop music isn't something we really see a lot of even today. I appreciate the shift from top quality kinda generic pop music to weird, orchestrated studio albums. Their producer also figured out some kind of innovative ways to record everything they wanted to do.

And I think the other thing is, when you hear a lot of the pop bands of the time, there are a few similarly great bands or songs (from less great bands trying to mimic the Beatles), but it's pretty clear to me that the Beatles were clearly a step above many of the others of the time, from a pop music perspective.

There are plenty of bands that I think are better, but in this particular case, I think I gotta go with the Beatles. I appreciate the diversity of their song stylings a little bit more than the Stones.

Posted October 26th by Jet Presto
View Source Quote Report

the beatles are boujee and the stones make songs for the working people, like “street foghting man” and “salt of the earth”

Posted October 26th by poptart!
View Source Quote Report

A working class hero is something to be.

Posted October 27th by pacman
View Source Quote Report

I don't hate the Stones. And I also tend to think the Beatles are a tad overrated. But I also think there's been this weird over-correction to that, wherein I think some have managed to somehow make the Beatles underrated.

Succinctly put. Sums up my feelings entirely. The whole “overrated for so long that they’ve managed to become underrated” phenomenon applies doubly to Ringo imo. Dude’s an incredibly talented drummer. Listen to the isolated drum track to a Beatles tune and it won’t take long to figure out what song it is. Not many drummers can do that.

As for the Stones, favorites of mine are Satisfaction (obviously), Tumbling Dice, Gimme Shelter, Brown Sugar, Wild Horses and Miss You. They wrote some great rockers and standards for their genre. Still, penning standards is not the same as pushing the boundaries of music and production with unprecedented creativity. Shoutout to the late, great George Martin for helping get the Beatles to those musical heights with his classical background and production savvy. If not for him, I might see the Beatles and the Stones more as equals than one being significantly better than the other.

Edited October 27th by pacman
View Source Quote Report

I prefer the stones over the beatles

Posted October 27th by S.o.h
View Source Quote Report
S.o.h
 

I prefer music to no music. Early disco sucked; later disco was good. Early rap sucked; later rap was good. In most genres, the best stuff is pretty good, and the mediocre stuff is pretty bad-to-my-taste unless I happen to like the genre a lot. Even if I like the genre, the worst examples are awful.

I like classical, and folk, and country-western, and international. , And most varieties of rock-and-roll, including acid rock, heavy metal rock, even rockabilly revival, the better punk, the better new wave, etc. The only stuff I never liked was “Mellowed-out-rock” aka “Adult-oriented rock”. They took all the “rock” and “roll” out of it and turned it into easy-listening elevator Muzak pap. I’d rather listen to country music or disco than that.

Speaking of country&western; my 23-y/o daughter is a fan, of Luke Bryan and some others whose names escape me.



Edited November 6th by chiarizio
View Source Quote Report

the better punk


hell yeah, what bands are you into?

Posted November 6th by poptart!
View Source Quote Report
Reply to: This Is The Very First Edition Of The Battle Of The Rock Bands!!!!!!!!!
Enter your message here

Rules | Report Issue | Request Feature | Roadmap Facebook Page | Discord Group
GTX0 © 2009-2019 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on
You are not forgotten, Kevin, Liane, Norma, Jason, and Garrett