Hard Light Productions Forums

Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Titan on November 29, 2009, 01:32:40 pm

Title: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Titan on November 29, 2009, 01:32:40 pm
Please vote.*****es.

Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: The E on November 29, 2009, 01:34:04 pm
Somehow, I don't feel like voting.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: iamzack on November 29, 2009, 01:40:30 pm
i would at least recognize the beatles if i heard them. notsomuch the stones. shrug.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Titan on November 29, 2009, 01:42:22 pm
i would at least recognize the beatles if i heard them. notsomuch the stones. shrug.

Weird, I'm the opposite.

And you have more than 40 posts...
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Macfie on November 29, 2009, 01:47:17 pm
There comes a time when it is best to quit playing while people remember your accomplishments and respect your talent.  The stones missed that by about 40 years.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: The E on November 29, 2009, 01:52:29 pm
And you have more than 40 posts...

No. She doesn't. Think about that. It is absolutely true.


On topic: I tried listening to the Beatles once. Gave up after a few minutes.
Now, the Stones, they are a bit more listenable, but not by much.

Machinae Supremacy is better than both of them combined, IMNSO.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Titan on November 29, 2009, 01:57:05 pm
There comes a time when it is best to quit playing while people remember your accomplishments and respect your talent.  The stones missed that by about 40 years.

Wasn't their last tour sponsored by some insurance company or a brand of toothpaste or something?

Their old music it goo tho.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Nuclear1 on November 29, 2009, 03:29:56 pm
I refuse to vote in a poll with no snuffleupagus option.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Rodo on November 29, 2009, 03:35:49 pm
Beatles suck BAD, really bad..

Stones suck also, not as bad as the Beatles but.. well they suck as well.

I could have gone with the "they both suck" option, but Snuffleupagus was just too tempting.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Ford Prefect on November 29, 2009, 04:10:05 pm
Jefferson Airplane.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 29, 2009, 04:48:02 pm
I think we just bore witness to puberty kicking in. . . . .
 
I like both bands but i'm not an indecisive prick. :p
'I am the Eggman' is genius, as is 'Let it be'.
 
The Approve the stones also due to exquisite lead guitar work.
 
I'm not voting though. . .
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: TESLA on November 29, 2009, 05:02:09 pm
options are biased anyhow.


Id go for neither  :o

Bit of Thin Lizzy instead  :pimp:
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 29, 2009, 05:12:02 pm
Snuffleupagus by a landslide.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: redsniper on November 29, 2009, 05:33:09 pm
Beatles suck BAD, really bad..

Stones suck also, not as bad as the Beatles but.. well they suck as well.

I could have gone with the "they both suck" option, but Snuffleupagus was just too tempting.
SON... I AM DISAPPOINT
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Black Wolf on November 29, 2009, 05:50:04 pm
Wow... OK, you "They both suck" guys do know that both bands are broadly recognized for their immense contributions to rock and roll and bouts of sheer musical genius right? You may not like them but it's simply not true that they both suck.

[EDIT]And yes, I know that this is exactly the reaction you want - "OH MY GODZ! HE CLAIMED THE BEATLES AND STONES SUCK THEN NAMED SOME SLIGHTLY MORE OBSCURE BAND AS BETTER! WHAT A UNIQUE AND DANGEROUS REBEL HE MUST BE!". Of course, nobody actually thinks that, but it's important you realize that we know your game, and that it's been played for decades before this (It broke up the first iteration of the Sex Pistols after all).


As for me, I like them both, but I like the Beatles quite a bit more. Sympathy for the Devil and You Can't Always Get What You Want are awesome, but they pale in comparison to stuff like A Day in the Life, Hey Bulldog and Strawberry fields (plus dozens of other I could list). Oh, and if we're talking 60s rock, The Who, IMO, sits above the Stones.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Titan on November 29, 2009, 06:03:27 pm
Lol. I knew the admins would break in and add those last 2 options.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Ford Prefect on November 29, 2009, 07:02:53 pm
Wow... OK, you "They both suck" guys do know that both bands are broadly recognized for their immense contributions to rock and roll and bouts of sheer musical genius right? You may not like them but it's simply not true that they both suck.
I didn't actually vote in the poll, but I think "they suck" is being treated as a colloquial expression of distaste. Generally, when I or someone else says, "that band sucks," I assume "in my opinion" to be implicit. I would never deny the Stones' influence on rock music, but that doesn't stop me from saying "this **** sucks" when I hear them.

As for The Beatles, I actually like them during their psychedelic phase, but I have to admit I find their early stuff intolerable.

So, I stand by my protest vote. Jefferson Airplane.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: StarSlayer on November 29, 2009, 08:40:46 pm
Led Zeppelin 
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Nuke on November 29, 2009, 09:55:20 pm
the doors ftw!
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Bobboau on November 30, 2009, 12:55:16 am
tough choice, but I'm gona go with the stones.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Mongoose on November 30, 2009, 01:02:48 am
Some of the responses in this thread make me absolutely weep.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Mars on November 30, 2009, 01:06:31 am
I liked the Yellow Submarine movie/thingy, but I'd have to go with the Stones.

I do not like the Doors Sam I Am
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Col. Fishguts on November 30, 2009, 06:52:59 am
Pointless poll is pointless..... -> Snuffleupagus wins
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Flipside on November 30, 2009, 06:55:08 am
It's like asking who's better, Bach or Beethoven, so I voted Snuffleupagus :)
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: BS403 on November 30, 2009, 11:25:18 am
.... I'm not a conformist prick, the Stones just suck....
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Aardwolf on November 30, 2009, 11:28:43 am
I liked the Yellow Submarine movie/thingy

YAY!!!!!
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Colonol Dekker on November 30, 2009, 05:08:29 pm
http://dive-dive-dive.ytmnd.com/

:yes:
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: NGTM-1R on November 30, 2009, 05:13:15 pm
.... I'm not a conformist prick, the Stones just suck....

Even though I voted for the Invisible Mammoth of doom, I do have to agree with this assessment by pure mainstream penetration. Random people still have a significant chance of playing the Beatles.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: achtung on November 30, 2009, 11:19:15 pm
I go for the stones more than the beetles most of the time.
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Wobble73 on December 01, 2009, 05:39:56 am
[Harry Hill voice] I like The Rolling Stones and I like The Beatles, but which one is better? There's only one way to find out! FIIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT!!!! [/Harry Hill voice]

:)
Title: Re: Stones .vs. Beatles
Post by: Colonol Dekker on December 01, 2009, 05:42:37 am
 :lol:

I urge someone to shoop it now....