i can't get no satisfaction is arpi's mantra
granted i'm not saying the stones suck, sympathy is one of the greatest songs ever. But I can't see how just on the sheer quantity of quality you could choose them over The Beatles.
i really like the stones too, but the beatles were more dynamic, had more of a cultural impact on society, and rocked harder.
ROCKED HARDER???!?! not a chance!!!!
Quote:Mick Jagger and my mom have the same exact birthday so she thinks they're cosmicaly connected or something.
so it runs in the family
I have the same b'day as fdb we are soul mates.
I wouldn't be surprised. What does he look like?
thin, handsome, well mannered and dashing, so the complete opposite of me.
but like paula abdul and dj skat cat proved, opposites attract
so i've gone from son to soul mate...thats an upgrade, right?
can a son not be a soul mate?
if you're a NAMBLA member, sure.
Ive never agreed with Arpi more. Me, Arpi, and Sleeper.....against the world. The new AXIS!!!
Axis of Feeble
The Old
the Awkward
and the Wimp
Mick Jaggar dances like a leper. I chose The Beatles.
Beatles by about fifty million miles.
Revolver is better than every Stones album combined.
But early Beatles stuff was really weak...
that early stuff was pre-drug use, right? I think that if it weren't for all that early cheese they wouldn't have gotten as huge as they did.
It's weird: early Beatles was cheesy and awful, but put them on the map and paved the way basically for rock in the future. God it was awful, but without them would we have seen Beatles > Stones > Led Zep > Metallica?
After they started doing the drugs, they put out some amazing music. John, Paul, and George were very talented (Ringo wasn't), imagine what music would be like without Revolver or Sgt. Peppers!
Oh wait, look at music now, nevermind...