|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 13, 2008 6:05:04 GMT -6
Well we are in the meat of the Presidential election season, and so there is no better time to ask the question that fires heated debate every time its asked.
Stones!
|
|
|
Post by jo on Oct 13, 2008 6:51:03 GMT -6
I'm writing in Led Zepplin........both for the music and because they had more band members I was in lust with (Plant & Page, as opposed to no one in the Stones and maybe Paul from the Beatles, but he wasn't really enough of a bad boy for me!). Jo
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 7:01:43 GMT -6
That would be the Stones.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Kawaii Kaiju on Oct 13, 2008 7:18:20 GMT -6
Are we judging on historic importance? Velvet Underground. Listenability today? Pink Floyd. Personifying a bunch of liches? Definitely the Rolling Stones. Evoking feelings of nostalgia? The Beatles. Zilla (On my current playlist? The Ramones) Modified to add: It helps if I actually read the poll question. The answer is The Moody Blues
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 13, 2008 8:01:08 GMT -6
No no no.. head to head, no write ins, in their prime... Stones or Beatles
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 8:10:37 GMT -6
No no no.. head to head, no write ins, in their prime... Stones or Beatles Blondie. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 13, 2008 8:24:42 GMT -6
[slumping shoulders] Oh shit [/slumping shoulders]
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 13, 2008 8:25:55 GMT -6
1927 NY Yankees.
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 13, 2008 8:27:25 GMT -6
Exactly
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 8:36:36 GMT -6
The Rutles.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 13, 2008 8:48:03 GMT -6
The Post Election Riots of 2008
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 13, 2008 8:55:25 GMT -6
Talk about one-hit wonders!
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 13, 2008 9:39:36 GMT -6
They were formed by a moderator of a ham-radio message board
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 13, 2008 13:20:49 GMT -6
You've got to be kidding! The Stones are a nice little band, in their own way, but they couldn't hold a candle to the Beatles!.......Jake (who also has a soft spot in his head for the Ramones and the Rutles)
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 13:33:44 GMT -6
The Beatles certainly were a popular beat combo in their day, but the Stones have gone on and on, they've diversified into many different musical genres, and have to take the prize for pure entertainment value alone.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by ♥ COVID-19♥ on Oct 13, 2008 13:35:12 GMT -6
Plus, they're the only ones who have a member that's also a genetic mutant (Keith Richards).
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 13, 2008 14:01:54 GMT -6
I still think the surviving Beatles (bassist and drummer) should team up with the surviving members of The Who (who lost their bassist and drummer) and tour under the name "Who's Left."
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 14:07:50 GMT -6
I've always felt that the world is divided into two kinds of people. People who liked John Lennon, and people who like Paul McCartney.
Personally, I always preferred George Harrison.
Simon
|
|
|
Post by Kawaii Kaiju on Oct 13, 2008 14:11:06 GMT -6
The Beatles certainly were a popular beat combo in their day, but the Stones have gone on and on, they've diversified into many different musical genres, and have to take the prize for pure entertainment value alone. Simon Right, but the question is who was better "in their prime". Since I was like 7 - 15 years old during "the prime" of both of those bands, I'm gonna have to say "The Beatles". They had much better songs to sing along to for a pre-driver. I also think they had a much broader appeal than The Stones did. Zilla (who thinks "It's easy to go on and on when you are actually one of the undead!"
|
|
|
Post by Kawaii Kaiju on Oct 13, 2008 14:15:19 GMT -6
I've always felt that the world is divided into two kinds of people. People who liked John Lennon, and people who like Paul McCartney. Personally, I always preferred George Harrison. Simon I'm a Ringo girl. But then again I also prefered Mickey Dolenz of The Monkees, and Danny of The Partridge Family. Zilla ("Atouk alounda Tala" bahahahahahaha, Caveman is an awesome movie if you like shit jokes, and I do!)
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 14:18:26 GMT -6
The Beatles certainly were a popular beat combo in their day, but the Stones have gone on and on, they've diversified into many different musical genres, and have to take the prize for pure entertainment value alone. Simon Right, but the question is who was better "in their prime". I'd still say the Stones. As much as I like both bands, when they were in their prime if you'd offered me tickets to see one or the other I'd have taken the Stones tickets. Simon
|
|
|
Post by Irish Stu on Oct 13, 2008 14:26:34 GMT -6
I've always felt that the world is divided into two kinds of people. People who liked John Lennon, and people who like Paul McCartney. Personally, I always preferred George Harrison. Simon I'm a Ringo girl. But then again I also prefered Mickey Dolenz of The Monkees, and Danny of The Partridge Family Simon (who also thought Mickey Dolenz was the best of the Monkees)
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 13, 2008 14:34:28 GMT -6
I've always felt that the world is divided into two kinds of people. People who liked John Lennon, and people who like Paul McCartney.Personally, I always preferred George Harrison. Simon I agree with you that much of the world is so divided, but I personally see equal value in each of them. In fact, they were much better together than either one was alone. Without McCartney, Lennon was a bit too obscure and iconoclastic. And without Lennon, McCartney was a bit too bubble-gum. Put them together, and you have a potent combo.......Jake
|
|
|
Post by Christinko on Oct 13, 2008 19:43:14 GMT -6
I'm with Jake on this one.
And Mickey Dolenz was my fav Monkee too.
I did receive a condolence card from a fellow Beatle fan gal pal after John Lennon was killed. I've been selling my old beat-up Beatles vinyl albums on Amazon...seems to be de rigeur these days to have their LPs.
|
|
|
Post by Merlot Joe on Oct 13, 2008 19:53:30 GMT -6
Once upon a time I would have said the Beatles, but as I aged I like the Stones music better.
Joe
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 14, 2008 0:25:26 GMT -6
I have the Beatles first six albums on vinyl; bought them in college in the 70s, played them ONCE to record them onto cassettes.
Many years later, I played them once again: to digitize them into mp3 files. They sound FABULOUS! Better than most of the CDs I've purchased!.......Jake (who also digitized my LPs of Abby Road and Sgt. Pepper, but those had been played the fuck out of and didn't sound quite so pristine)
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 14, 2008 4:01:43 GMT -6
I have the Beatles first six albums on vinyl; bought them in college in the 70s, played them ONCE to record them onto cassettes. Many years later, I played them once again: to digitize them into mp3 files. They sound FABULOUS! Better than most of the CDs I've purchased!.......Jake (who also digitized my LPs of Abby Road and Sgt. Pepper, but those had been played the fuck out of and didn't sound quite so pristine)I heard an old 60's era DJ on Sirius put the best spin on vinyl records versus CD's/mp3's... "Yeah sure, vinyl would get scratches, but they were YOUR scratches damn it, and you could remember where each one came from, and that memory made the music even better."
|
|
|
Post by Ardbeg... innit on Oct 14, 2008 4:04:34 GMT -6
Im with Joe on this. In my youth, I pretty much ignored the Stones. Oh yeah, I knew they were there, but now, if I could only listen to one group, it would be the Stones
Gorodn (who thinks the best member of the Monkees was Neil Diamond, since he wrote their best material)
|
|
|
Post by DT on Oct 14, 2008 7:27:32 GMT -6
Beatles, only because Brian Jones meet an early demise.
Psssst....Kinks get my write in vote
|
|
|
Post by Chicago Jake on Oct 14, 2008 9:28:33 GMT -6
Whatever you do, don't send any fan mail to Ringo!
|
|