CDIH
Beatles Vs. Rolling Stones - Printable Version

+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Noise Pollution (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Beatles Vs. Rolling Stones (/showthread.php?tid=10711)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


- Keyser Soze - 10-28-2005

i can't get no satisfaction is arpi's mantra


- GonzoStyle - 10-28-2005

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.


- Keyser Soze - 10-28-2005

i really like the stones too, but the beatles were more dynamic, had more of a cultural impact on society, and rocked harder.


- Arpikarhu - 10-28-2005

ROCKED HARDER???!?! not a chance!!!!


- HedCold - 10-28-2005

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



- GonzoStyle - 10-28-2005

I have the same b'day as fdb we are soul mates.


- Suzie - 10-28-2005

I wouldn't be surprised. What does he look like?


- GonzoStyle - 10-28-2005

thin, handsome, well mannered and dashing, so the complete opposite of me.

but like paula abdul and dj skat cat proved, opposites attract



- fbd - 10-28-2005

so i've gone from son to soul mate...thats an upgrade, right?


- GonzoStyle - 10-28-2005

can a son not be a soul mate?


- Goatweed - 10-29-2005

if you're a NAMBLA member, sure.


- TheGMANN - 10-29-2005

Ive never agreed with Arpi more. Me, Arpi, and Sleeper.....against the world. The new AXIS!!!


- Black Lazerus - 10-29-2005

Axis of Feeble

The Old
the Awkward
and the Wimp



- The Jays - 10-31-2005

Mick Jaggar dances like a leper. I chose The Beatles.


- GonzoStyle - 10-31-2005

No surprises here.


- jewdown - 11-02-2005

keith richards is a hack


- Arpikarhu - 11-02-2005

HERESY!!!


- Sir O - 11-07-2005

Beatles by about fifty million miles.

Revolver is better than every Stones album combined.

But early Beatles stuff was really weak...



- Goatweed - 11-07-2005

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.


- Sir O - 11-07-2005

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...