Are you a Rolling Stone or a Beatle? POLL

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.

The Rolling Stones or the Beatles- who do you think is better?

The Rolling Stones
5
24%
The Beatles
16
76%
 
Total votes: 21

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Allstar wrote:Way to overrate him and what is the point in posting that in this thread?
Kinda true. haha.

I love Radiohead but to be honest, they don't hold a candle against RS and TB. :lol:

User avatar
Posts: 42894
Joined: May 2010
Oh yeah The Beatles own. I pick them vs. the Stones.

Posts: 9038
Joined: July 2010
Meraxes wrote:I do not believe anyone here know who either are. /s
But I think you need to make a Kim Kardashian and Lady GAGA poll instead :shh:
WTF?

User avatar
Posts: 20369
Joined: June 2010
My favorite is Taylor Hicks.


User avatar
Posts: 20086
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
RIFA wrote:
Allstar wrote:Way to overrate him and what is the point in posting that in this thread?
Kinda true. haha.

I love Radiohead but to be honest, they don't hold a candle against RS and TB. :lol:
Thing is, other people were, and anyone who knows me realizes I'll grab any opportunity to praise Trent/RH. Regardless, RH is objectively superior to both, Trent's probably not though.

-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 42894
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
RIFA wrote: Kinda true. haha.

I love Radiohead but to be honest, they don't hold a candle against RS and TB. :lol:
Thing is, other people were, and anyone who knows me realizes I'll grab any opportunity to praise Trent/RH. Regardless, RH is objectively superior to both, Trent's probably not though.

-Vader
Radiohead superior to The Beatles?! On which planet do you live on?! Trent "probably not" lmao.

User avatar
Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Vader182 wrote:Regardless, RH is objectively superior to both, Trent's probably not though.
Wait. What? Are you serious? :lol: :|


Radiohead superior to Beatles and Rolling Stones? Based on what exactly? I'm really interested in this if you care to elaborate.

User avatar
Posts: 16716
Joined: March 2012
Damn, I like both a lot. Though I am surprised the Rolling Stones are still performing, last I heard anyways, I've gotta say Beatles. They're just too influential to not go with.

Posts: 18329
Joined: February 2011
Vader182 wrote:Regardless, RH is objectively superior to both
Care to explain?

User avatar
Posts: 20086
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I'd love to ramble about it, but I'm taking a brief break from studying for a big exam tomorrow.

Basically, the conventional ideas of music don't really concern me, it's much more complex in music theory. Essentially, The Beatles are tonally consistent throughout much of their work, their general sound is similar and doesn't really change too much, but the song writing and technical abilities they possess are pretty rarely less than fantastic to completely amazing. They're classic, timeless songs, and for great reason. However, that tonal consistency doesn't sit well with me in a modern setting, though I'm sure what variation they had seemed huge back then since obviously they practically invented their sound. Also, they follow a pretty conventional instrumental structure by modern standards, though I'm sure that too was hailed as revolutionary for how unique it was at the time. That's my basic criticism of The Beatles, it's hard for me to listen to music that sounds too similar too often, since sometimes their songs sound the same only with different melody and lyrics. The impact of their music isn't to be dismissed, though.

As for the Stones, their music is straight rock n' roll, which is often deliberately superficial and "fun", but that's obviously not to say they haven't written a great deal of songs with extremely relevant and profound social commentary that could also be extremely emotional, and it goes without saying they changed music to an extraordinarily profound degree. Even so, a huge portion of their music was made for 'entertainment' and 'fun', which isn't necessarily really knocking them, they're masters of it and deserve nothing but respect and admiration.

Radiohead and to a lesser extent Trent, basically set out with almost every album to get to extreme psychological and cultural depths and social commentary, and some superficial stuff is thrown in too. They constantly push genres and boundaries in a way David Bowie did back in the day (my favorite artist from that whole era pretty much), meshing bits of this and that whilst creating their own in the process. They try to say more, culturally, philosophically, emotionally, and personally with each record than The Beatles and Stones often did, and that tends to impress me a lot more than just writing a bunch of great songs because of the greater depth by the nature of what it's trying to do, even if they falter more often than their predecessors. Obviously Trent isn't nearly as technically proficient a musician as any other artists in the discussion, but Radiohead can pretty closely hold a candle to the best. Radiohead's changed music quite a few times with albums bursting with new ideas, Kid A is somehow one of the most depressing, haunting, but beautiful and optimistic albums ever, somehow all at the same time after inventing all kinds of new instruments and sounds nobody's ever heard before. They've done things like that more than once or twice, and when you write music with literally endless combinations and possibilities with much more attempt at emotion/theme, it feels much more profound than the former.

Well look at that, I rambled a whole bunch. Sorry lol. I doubt Allstar'll read that, maybe Rifa. Or Mason if he's feeling generous.

-Vader

Post Reply