Poll: Make your choice!
Poll Options
View poll results: Make your choice!
The Beatles
32 52%
The Rolling Stones
12 19%
Neither (please don't shoot me)
18 29%
Voters: 62.
Page 1 of 2
#2
Seems like a battle for most overrated band ever.
Quote by MeTallIcA313
Guys, you heard Mr. Sacamano. No fun until racism is over.
#4
Do we really need to fight over this? I mean come on, all you need is love to see that you can't get no satisfaction without having both bands under your thumb on your iPod. I wouldn't be able to stand going down penny lane to get some brown sugar from mean Mr. Mustard if I couldn't get my ya-ya's out to while I twist and shout.

Seriously, just enjoy both of them. It's only rock and roll, but I like it, and I think we can work it out.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 50-54
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#5
You are comparing straight up British pop music with a psychedelic rock band. They aren't even kind of the same.
#7
Quote by chev311e
all i know is that the who are pretty bad tbh


Are you nuts?
#8
The Beatles had the decency to break up, and/or die.
Quote by Diemon Dave
Don't go ninjerin nobody don't need ninjerin'
#9
Hmmmm.....I think the Beatles had a higher % of good music than the Stones, but I like the Stones' better stuff more than the Beatles.

Love Keith Richards, but gotta go with the Beatles here.
#16
Quote by TobusRex
Are you nuts?



No they don't make any good songs. Maybe a couple but they are overrated as hell
#17
Quote by sickman411 at #33610143
Beatles > Who > Stones




Quote by chev311e at #33610214
No they don't make any good songs. Maybe a couple but they are overrated as hell


dirtbag ballet by the bins down the alley
as i walk through the chalet of the shadow of death
everything that you've come to expect


#18
Calling The Beatles overrated... is overrated.
Quote by Overlord
It's not hard to be nice, but it's nice to be hard
#19
Quote by chev311e
No they don't make any good songs. Maybe a couple but they are overrated as hell


The Seeker, My Wife, My Generation, Won't Get Fooled Again, Baba O'Riley, Pinball Wizard, Squeezebox. Every one of those is a classic. Methinks you haven't listened to enough WHO.

Squeezebox is the greatest double entendre song of all time, imo.
#20
Quote by TobusRex
The Seeker, My Wife, My Generation, Won't Get Fooled Again, Baba O'Riley, Pinball Wizard, Squeezebox. Every one of those is a classic. Methinks you haven't listened to enough WHO.

Squeezebox is the greatest double entendre song of all time, imo.

you forgot " I can see for miles"

And there's probably a few more that I cant think of, so that's like about 10 good songs
stones had about that many good songs.

Beatles had 280 sum originals and I think it would be fair to say that well over 200 them were good ones. I can only think of a handful I never liked.

But everyone is right the Beatles were really really really really bad they were horrible just awful terrible also meant despicable horrible just a living nightmare is what it was.

It was worst thing that ever happened. It wasnt the worst thing that ever happened music it was worst thing that ever happened.
#21
Neither are as good as Velvet Underground but the Rolling Stones are real good


Last edited by bradulator at Sep 24, 2015,
#23
Quote by chev311e
Won't get fooled again is boring


You have to have better focus than a goldfish for some songs!
#24
I can't think of many bad Beatles songs either Yope..but I can think of crap albums from the Stones Those guys haven't cut an album that wasn't 100% pure shit in over 30 years. I like classic Stones, but those boys need to retire from the band and start cutting solo stuff.
#25
I like the Stones more than the Beatles. I don't really ever choose to listen to either, but if they come on somewhere I enjoy it enough.

The Who suck though.


As far as old Rock goes ELO > everything else
___

Quote by The_Blode
she was saying things like... do you want to netflix and chill but just the chill part...too bad she'll never know that I only like the Netflix part...
#26
depends on the mood and which album we're talking about

your question has been asked forever and is too vague, people need to understand this
#28
Both are shit.
There's no such thing; there never was. Where I am going you cannot follow me now.
#29
Who listens to either of these besides geriatrics.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#32
Quote by Eastwinn at #33610405
kill me


Later
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 50-54
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#33
Beatles. I like the Rolling Stones, but the Beatles were more innovative with songwriting, production, and took in a lot more cultures and experimentation in their music. The only thing the Stones have on them is longevity and more of that sex, drugs and rock 'n roll image.
#34
The Rolling Stones are preferable to me.

Silly argument cause both are excellent, as are The Who
'And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.'

'You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.'
#35
I tried listening to a Stones album once but couldn't, it was too boring.
WHAT A
HORRIBLE
NIGHT TO
HAVE A
CURSE.
#36
99% of replies seem to be people who are think just because a band is big they are bad. The Beatles and rolling stones are both amazing bands. I prefer The Beatles
#38
Quote by necrosis1193
Do we really need to fight over this? I mean come on, all you need is love to see that you can't get no satisfaction without having both bands under your thumb on your iPod. I wouldn't be able to stand going down penny lane to get some brown sugar from mean Mr. Mustard if I couldn't get my ya-ya's out to while I twist and shout.

Seriously, just enjoy both of them. It's only rock and roll, but I like it, and I think we can work it out.


People over the internet are willing to fight over anything and the bigger the flame war the happier everyone is. The fact that the topic is touchy as it is is only a bonus.

Also, comparing the stones to the Beatles is like comparing apples and oranges. It's pointless cos you can't compare them and people will still fight over it while the rest will scream both are shit cos they got nothing else to do.
Purple string dampener scrunchy.
Last edited by Guitar0player at Sep 25, 2015,
#39
Even when I was 14 and more into classic rock, I never could get into the Stones. Their music just didn't do it for me. Growing up hasn't changed my opinion.


That said, I still listen to The Beatles pretty regularly. I'd pick The Beatles without a second thought.
#40
Neither.

The Stones sound like a shambles.

Lennon and McCartney's voices don't blend together well and sound horribly raucous, especially in their old rock and roll songs.

The Who and The Kinks are both substantially better than either.
Page 1 of 2