ARRSE is supported by the advertisements on it, so if you use an adblocker please consider helping us by starting an Ad-Free subscription.

The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?; Post and be judged

Discussion in 'Films, Music and All Things Artsy' started by Virgil, Oct 14, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. OK you nation of shopkeepers, upper-class homosexuals, Protestant heathens (redundant), distant cousins of George Bush and DNA wellspring of Appalachian Rednecks which is it: the Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

    (Yeah, yeah, yeah, The Who and Led Zep aren't listed.)

    Post your answer and rationale. I have the answer and will reveal it in due course.
  2. I grew up on a diet of Elvis and Beatles 45s and look up the Beatles on Youtube nearly every day. Never been a Stones fan, don't know what the fuss is all about.
  3. Rolling Stones. <Paint it black/Gimme Shelter>

    The Beatles are/were cnuts. <Fcuking yellow submarine>

    (Lots of Love their favourite Scouse fan :roll: )
  4. Stones, greatest rock and roll band in the world.
    Most of them are stll alive.
  5. I like both but got to be The beatles
  6. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    Neither. Not a great fan of them. I like a few 'really good' songs by both, but have none of their albums, and would definitely not describe myself as a big fan boy of either group. More of a Pink Floyd man myself.
  7. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    The Stones:

    1) For some of the most enduring guitar riffs in rock and roll.

    2) The fact that Keith Richards (who survives on a diet of cocaine and his dad's ashes) outlived George Harrison (who dieted on lentils and tofu). A natural justice of sorts.

    3) That and the fact that I was for many years nicknamed 'Jumping Jack Flash' (or a version of, that incorporates my last name), thereby linking me with the band on a visceral level.

    4) One of the legacies of The Beatles are Oasis.

    5) Scorcese has made a film about them.
  8. Ravers

    Ravers LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

  9. RP578

    RP578 LE Book Reviewer

    poofters! :D
  10. never listened to them - give me oasis any day!
  11. When I saw the title of this post, I did think that it might quite hard to decide, however with tracks like “Sympathy for the Devil” it has to be the Stones.

    Also while I thought John Lennon had real talent, I find Sir Paul more than a little tedious.

  12. Ravers

    Ravers LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Yeah probably, but hey I used to be in the Navy don't you know.
  13. The Stones - Keith Richards licks are just ... astonishing.

    Plus, the Beatles were the Oasis of their day with Liam Gallagher being dealt with by John Lennon who was famously asked if Ringo Starr was the best drummer in the world and answered (allegedly) "Best drummer in the world? He's not even the best drummer in the Beatles".
  14. Ravers

    Ravers LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    On a seperate note I am late for work nearly every day as I am held up at Abbey Road zebra crossing by suicidal Japanese tourists who hurl themselves into oncoming traffic to try and get that fcuking Beatles phot!

    Have they not heard of photoshop?

  15. Not a big fan of either of the groups. The Beatles are a bit too mellow for my taste, but have to give John some props on lyrics. The Stones are a bit faster pace so if I have to choose I guess they get my vote. I played the Stones "Start Me Up" on our school radio station back in the 80's, & it got me kicked off the air! LMFAO, it was not on the approved playlist & the lyrics were deemed suggestive!