plime.com : 21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles

As Paul McCartney's divorce comes to an end, this guy puts the boot in claiming The Stones were better than the Beatles. picked by gimmeshocktreatment 8 months ago

tags mccartney beatles music opinion stones rolling stones

-22

quote edit #1

comments (5)

edit history (0)

< 1 >

17	bevissim...

8 months ago

Sorry, I still think the Stones are disgusting wannabes. Never liked their music, never liked their role modeling.

They just suck.

quote #2

32	dOntEAtp...

8 months ago

I don't know why they're even compared other than they both came from the British inavasion. They have completely different sounds; the Stones are more bluesy...

I've never understood the need to compare different bands, especially when they sound nothing alike.

I mean, I could see Pearl Jam being compared to Stone Temple Pilots (even though I feel they are both distinctly different, there are tons of similarities as well); but the Stones and the Beatles??? WTF?

quote #3

9	osiris12

8 months ago

Well...no one can compare to the Beatles. But I thought they did some good stuff back in the day. Come on...Satisfaction, Paint it Black, Under My Thumb! Classics!

quote #4

suebe

8 months ago

No one noticed this was a blog?

quote #5

About Plime

Plime is an editable wiki community where users can add and edit weird and interesting links. Users earn karma when other users vote on their actions. The more karma you have, the more power you have at Plime.

syndication

suebe

8 months ago

Hi and welcome to plime.

Please read the FAQs before posting to your blog. Blog postings in the news area are frowned upon by the community. The FAQs will give you guidance on posting and where you can post your blog.

Look forward to more non-blog posts.

/oh, and The Beatles rock!

quote #6

+ add a comment

< 1 >