myLot Discussions | | | | | How many of you listen to The Rolling Stones | | I simply love The Rolling Stones. My best Rock Band!!What about you? What can you say about Rolling Stones? Which is your best rock team? What can you say about them? Which songs of them you like most? | |
| | | The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones... | | OK,Two of the greatest bands of all time but which group is better? Personally, my favourite group in the whole wide world would have to be the Beatles. I think they were able to accomplish in 10 years (officially as recording artists) what the Rolling Stones have done in the last 46 years. The Beatles have more memorable tunes. Sure you've got RS songs like "Tainted Black" and "Satisfaction" but can those really compare to "Yesterday", "I Want to Hold Your Hand" or "I am the Walrus"? Cu-cu-ca-choo people!!! Lennon and McCartney were both able to be extremely successful after the Beatles break up. Who can forget "Imagine" and "Instant Karma" by John Lennon or "Live and Let Die" and "Silly Love Songs" by Paul McCartney? George Harrison had a couple of good songs like "My Sweet Lord" and "Got My Mind Set on You". Even Ringo was able to bust out some singing chops on "Photograph" and "You're Sixteen". I don't think Mick Jagger, Keith Richards or any other member of the Rolling Stones would be successful or as successful as solo artists. Each Beatle brought their own musical genius to the table and there's just no comparison between the two groups. I give the RS credit for having... | |
| | rolling stones touring again? | | wow..the longevity of this band is just amazing.
they must have logged in more road hours than anybody.
i had heard also mick has a pacemaker now-bless his heart,he's still going.maybe this time i'll get to see them,though it depends on price.your thoughts?
also,what do you think of the price of big ticket tours
nowadays? | |
| | | The Beatles vs Rolling Stones debate | | I don't know if I am the only one - I suppose there must be other Beatles fans that get rattled when Rolling Stones fans claim that the Stones were a "better" group at all counts.Most of them support this "fact" with the following arguments:1. The Rolling Stones wrote and performed "serious" rhythm and blues music when the Beatles were playing "candy floss pop music" (their words, not mine)2. The Rolling Stones were "bad guys" and "rebels" when the Beatles were "mummy's boys in suits" (their words, not mine again)When challenged though with the evident question "Well, which group was more influential then?" they seem to go mumbling "Oh yeah, we don't say that the Beatles weren't good, we only say that the Stones were better".All I've got to say is:1. If the Beatles wrote "candy floss" pop, how come the first #1 song the Stones ever had was a Lennon-McCartney song, also performed by the Beatles?2. Well, if the Beatles were "mummy's boys in suits" then why is John Lennon considered to be a "must" musical influence for every young rebel? And don't say it was his solo career - "Revolution" was very much a Beatles song!Phew, it was nice to get this out... | |
|
|
