Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
I know which one I prefer.
Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
Faggots my arse. I can guarantee-god-damned-tee you I've spent more hours listening to Beatles records in the past 30 years than any man, women, or child (hi @backthepack ) here.
Wrong.
And furthermore, Beatle snobs - unless you've listened to the correct mono mixes of their recordings you can shut the fuck up. Mono is where it's at on EVERY Beatles record prior to the White LP. The stereo Revolver and Pepper suck in comparison to the Mono.
Bruh, I listened to all the fucking mono records in the spring of '92 bitch. Get on my level. How'd they produce the effect for John's vocal on tomorrow never knows?
GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.
I would concede I'm not on you're level if you're gonna play RECORDING STUDIO SUPERIORITY GUY.
As much as I love Aftermath, it can't hold a candle to Revolver in terms of influence/brilliance. But then oh wait, Paint It Black was a better single than anything the Beatles put out in 1966. And it's the best use of sitar on a rock record, even if George got there first. The Stones took many of the Beatles ideas and made them even better.
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
I know which one I prefer.
Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.
Completely agree. The Stones were way more influenced by jazz & blues though. They even took their name from Muddy Waters.
In my early years I grew up loving the Beatles and being pretty oblivious to the Stones. When I finally found the Stones as a teenager though, I listened to their entire discography from 64' to 72' in one sitting.
My father, who is a bit of an audiophile, has all of these albums, Beatles & Rolling Stones, on vinyl from their first US releases. He prefers the Stones by a wide margin.
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
I know which one I prefer.
Chuck was still the most important influence on both groups, but still, you're point is largely accurate.
Completely agree. The Stones were way more influenced by jazz & blues though. They even took their name from Muddy Waters.
In my early years I grew up loving the Beatles and being pretty oblivious to the Stones. When I finally found the Stones as a teenager though, I listened to their entire discography from 64' to 72' in one sitting.
My father, who is a bit of an audiophile, has all of these albums, Beatles & Rolling Stones, on vinyl from their first US releases. He prefers the Stones by a wide margin.
The one thing that sucks about early Stones records is they sound like shit up until Aftermath in 1966. The only exception is the tracks they cut at Chess in 1964. The early Beatles records were much better recorded sound-wise.
Stones voters have no actual, logical claim to say they are better than The Beatles. They are The Beatles' little brother. You faggots are all voting for Oregon over UW in this poll!
The Beatles early work is bubble gum pop/boy band type stuff.
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
I know which one I prefer.
I hate blues and jazz so much. Maybe that's why I know the stones are shit compared to the Beatles
Comments
The Stones early work is blues/jazz inspired rock and roll.
I know which one I prefer.
GET. ON. MY. LEVEL.
As much as I love Aftermath, it can't hold a candle to Revolver in terms of influence/brilliance. But then oh wait, Paint It Black was a better single than anything the Beatles put out in 1966. And it's the best use of sitar on a rock record, even if George got there first. The Stones took many of the Beatles ideas and made them even better.
In my early years I grew up loving the Beatles and being pretty oblivious to the Stones. When I finally found the Stones as a teenager though, I listened to their entire discography from 64' to 72' in one sitting.
My father, who is a bit of an audiophile, has all of these albums, Beatles & Rolling Stones, on vinyl from their first US releases. He prefers the Stones by a wide margin.
And Keith Motherfucking Richards is going to outlive every single one of us. So, Stones.
Proving that FS can outlive SS since December 1980.
1. Stones
2. Who