21 Reasons The Stones Were Better Than The Beatles Posted: 9 months ago by gimmeshocktreatment
As Paul McCartney's divorce comes to an end, this guy puts the boot in claiming The Stones were better than the Beatles.
Comments: 5 Score: [-] -22 [+].
< 1 >
Posted: 9 months ago by bevissimo:
Sorry, I still think the Stones are disgusting wannabes. Never liked their music, never liked their role modeling.
They just suck.
Score: [-] 22 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by dOntEAtpOOp:
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?
Score: [-] 63 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by osiris12:
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!
Score: [-] 32 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by suebe:
No one noticed this was a blog?
Score: [-] 80 [+].
Posted: 9 months ago by suebe:
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!
Score: [-] 62 [+].
< 1 >