Forums

ForumsPopular Media

Battle of the Bands: Kaiser Chiefs vs Editors & ProtoMartyr vs Future Of The Left (Page 428)

Posted Sep 19, '12 at 5:51am

CaptainSamoa

CaptainSamoa

372 posts

I'm going to have to go with The Stones on this one, soley because of their longevity. While it can't be helped that key members of The Who are dead (Keith Moon and John Entwistle), The Stones thrived for nearly 20 years, up about until the mid 80's. Most bands don't even last 10 years without some form of lineup change or split. Also, I firmly believe The Stones have had a bigger influence on the industry and current artists because of their longevity. The Who were a phenomenal band, but there's just something about their sound that just doesn't click with me. Although I believe that The Who have put on more EPIC songs, The Stones have put out more consistently good songs. Longevity and consistency trump everything. Let's not get it twisted here, if a crap band stayed together as long as The Stones, I wouldn't be saying this about them.

 

Posted Sep 20, '12 at 5:52pm

waluigi

waluigi

1,954 posts

And I'm back, for the time being. A little slow I see, but I'll add my vote before an update.

In all honesty, the Stones haven't really done that much for me. I've always been bored by them, and I've tried to listen to them for extended periods of time. The Who, on the other hand, never gets old for me. Roger's energy is amazing, even on the studio albums. Plus, as a bassist, John Entwistle is quite a roll model (behind Geddy Lee and Victor Wooten, of course). And the insanity that was Pete Townshend (spelled that wrong) and Kieth Moon...just amazing. I especially like the 'Tommy' album. Fantastic stuff.

And so the score now is:

__________________________________________________

2 - THE WHO
-VS-
4 - THE ROLLING STONES
__________________________________________________

Please, please, please, please, please. VOTE

 

Posted Sep 24, '12 at 11:35am

ilberic

ilberic

871 posts

I guess I'd give my vote in this case to the Rolling Stones. Both of these are groups I never used to get into, but have appealed to my musical senses as of late. I love songs by both of them, but of all the songs between both the groups, Sympathy for the Devil is my favorite and therefore the reason that the Stones get my vote.

Vote - Rolling Stones

 

Posted Oct 3, '12 at 3:44pm

waluigi

waluigi

1,954 posts

Hmm...Well this seems to have stagnated. Sorry about not noticing it earlier. I suppose I'll have to dig out another battle. Expect it up within the next two days.

 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 1:44pm

waluigi

waluigi

1,954 posts

Now then, time to bring an end to the battle. The final score is

__________________________________________________

2 - THE WHO
-VS-
5 - THE ROLLING STONES
__________________________________________________

And now...the Battle of Britain, part II

our contestants:

THE BEATLES VS. THE ROLLING STONES

I don't think you guys need any examples of songs by these two, so let the battle begin!!!!

 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 2:08pm

Salvidian

Salvidian

4,299 posts

The Beatles. They were bigger than Jesus because they could combine pop music and rock music to create a boppity enough sound for the hipsters of the 60's, as well as a wholesome enough sound for the conservative Midwestern people of the 60's.

The Beatles had the most No. 1 albums in both the UK and US, with 15 in the UK and 20 in the US. They also had dozens of No. 1 albums in other countries, such as Germany, Finland, Australia, and Canada.

Here, look at some of the worlds records they hold:

Most Christmas No.1 Singles In UK Chart
Most Consecutive Christmas No.1 Singles - UK
Most Consecutive No.1 Singles In The UK Chart
Most No.1 Singles On US Chart
Most Platinum RIAA Certificates For A Group
Most Successful Songwriting Duo
Most US Chart No. 1 Albums By A Group
Most Albums On US Chart Simultaneously
Most Recorded Song (Yesterday)
Most Valuable Pop Memorabilia (John Lennon's 1965 Phantom V Rolls-Royce was bought for $2,229,000 by Jim Pattison, Chairman of the Expo 86 World Fair in Vancouver, Canada, at Sotheby's, New York on June 29, 1985.)

Among all of this, next time you go to the Mall, see how many Beatles shirts you can find. Look for all the merchandise that was created from it.

Even after the Beatles split up, each individual Beatles had a phenomenal musical career. Paul McCartney's Wings, John Lennon's solo career, George Harrison's huge benefit stuff, like Concert for Bangladesh, and Ringo Starr's solo career.

Need I say more?

 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 3:06pm

xxsneaky

xxsneaky

107 posts

Talent wise I would have to say The Rolling Stones, but The Beatles have had a much larger impact on popular culture. So I'll say The Beatles.

 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 5:46pm

Cherezig

Cherezig

64 posts

The Rolling Stones because they're were a bit edgier. The Beatles were unquestionably influential, but ultimately made fairly mediocre pop and psychedelia from a retrospective.

 

Posted Oct 6, '12 at 5:55pm

Skulltivator

Skulltivator

647 posts

The Stones, because they had a better rock sound and didn't feel that they had to appeal to everybody. I always felt that they were more rebellious than the Beatles ever were.

 

Posted Oct 7, '12 at 5:06pm

fries

fries

96 posts

neither ha i hete both bands

 
Reply to Battle of the Bands: Kaiser Chiefs vs Editors & ProtoMartyr vs Future Of The Left (Page 428)

You must be logged in to post a reply!