Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Elite 8 (1960's) - #1 The Beatles vs #2 The Rolling Stones

1356

Comments

  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,837 Founders Club
    #2 The Rolling Stones
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    YellowSnow said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.


    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Dennis_DeYoung
    Dennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    #1 The Beatles
    YellowSnow said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    YellowSnow said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,837 Founders Club
    #2 The Rolling Stones
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,837 Founders Club
    #2 The Rolling Stones
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    YellowSnow said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,837 Founders Club
    #2 The Rolling Stones
    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    YellowSnow said:

    Dennis_DeYoung said:

    YellowSnow said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,622 Founders Club
    #2 The Rolling Stones
    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • YellowSnow
    YellowSnow Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 37,837 Founders Club
    #2 The Rolling Stones
    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    YellowSnow said:

    UW_Doog_Bot said:

    BleachedAnusDawg said:

    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.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter