The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? (12)

1 Name: キタ━━━━━━━━( ・∀・)━━━━━━━━!!!! [Del]

Who do you think is the more deserving legend?

4 Name: キタ━━━━━━━━( ・∀・)━━━━━━━━!!!! [Del]

The Thin White Duke.

5 Name: キタ━━━━━━━━( ・∀・)━━━━━━━━!!!! [Del]


7 Name: キタ━━━━━━━━( ・∀・)━━━━━━━━!!!! [Del]

In the old debate of Blur vs Oasis The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones, there are a few things to consider:

  1. The Stones are still around.
  2. The Beatles were knighted.
  3. Billy Shears' music is very different from John Lennon's. The Beatles did things with rhythm that few, if any, hit music producers dare try even today.
  4. The Beatles were Pop. The Stones are Rock'n'Roll.
  5. Apple Records.

I think it boils down to: Do you admire success more than you like to dance?

8 Post deleted by user.

9 Name: キタ━━━━━━━━( ・∀・)━━━━━━━━!!!! [Del]


> The Beatles were Pop

Ah yes, who could forget classic pop tunes like A Day in the Life, I Am the Walrus, Revolution 9, and Blue Jay Way?

11 Name: Velvet Underground [Del]

Nobody who has heard it to its full extend can ever forget Revolution Number >>9.

12 Name: キタ━━━━━━━━( ・∀・)━━━━━━━━!!!! [Del]

Just because it's psychedelic and baroque doesn't mean it stops being pop. Just embrace pop already.

Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...