beatles vs rolling stones

eh, "let it be," kid's 14. maybe his thoughts will become a little clearer after a few hits of LSD

 

Let It Be is an album...

 

If you guys don't know that Let It Be is a Beatles album , and for some reason won't read the post I was responding to, how can you rag on me for not knowing about the Beatles?

 

Okay Proggy, don't get froggy and start jumping to conclusions.

First the post, I guess you are referring to was mine. If you reread it you will notice that I wasn't saying anything about the respective talents of the two groups. I was mostly talking about the different images that the two groups portrayed. The Beatles had a good boy image and the Stones had a bad boy image and that is why I said; “Ever notice how the Stones were just a bad boy copy of the Beatles?” Then I mentioned two albums and then four songs as examples, two of the songs where also albums but I was talking about the songs. But now that you mention it the album titles also have the same similarities as the songs.

Anyway, of course it was a ridiculous post, because I meant it that way. I was just pointing out some interesting coincidences in their song and album catalogs and that it seems like the Stones sometimes were poking fun at the Beatles.

Sorry if I made you bunchy but you need to relax go with the flow as they say!
OWB

 

It really didn't sound like a joke. I was pointing out that the Stones didn't just make a 'bad boy' version of what The Beatles did.

 

I think the beatles have a higher concentration of better tunes, but the stones have to very fucking good songs too.

And yes the rolling stones took shit to far in terms of living, which took its toll on the band. The bealtes for the most part had very little struggle besides the yoko situation, which i think is still a bullshit theory. The beatles were finished because their music got old, as did the stones.

 

Uh, because the Stones chose to live the way they did they had it hard? Are you joking?

 

The Beatles are probably my all-time favorite band, so I'll say the Beatles.

On the other hand I saw the Stones in concert and they were absolutely phenomenal, they've pretty much set the bar as far as rock 'n roll goes.

But I listen to the Beatles a lot more so...

 

You can interpret it anyway you want.

Fact is, the bealtes and the stones influenced eachother, there for neither are better then eachother.

Although, keith richards was a far better guitarist then lennon and harrison.

 

You make no sense, and aren't even countering the point I made, so I'm not sure how to respond to this one...

 

First of all, you didnt make a point, you asked a question about my post, and i said you can interpret my post anyway you want.

Second, theres no need to repond unless your just looking for an argument.

 

Even after pointing it out to you, you still don’t get it?
I guess some people can’t take a joke!
I hope you don’t take everything this seriously; you’ll have a heart attack before you turn 18!
Just remember; "It's only rock and roll!" - The Rolling Stones

 

But I like it!

 

Me too!

 

Well, not that album so much, but still!

 

But it' a great song!