Forums → Popular Media → Battle of the Bands: Locked due to inactivity. (Page ...)

4274	2657317

offline

XxLBJames23xX

769 posts

Peasant

Posted May 5, '09 10:54pm UTC

This thread while hold competitions to see which band AG likes the most. You vote on which of the following band is better and why. Then, I will add all of the votes and see which band is better.

RULES
1.You can only vote one time
2.Do not spam (duh).
3.Do not complain if the band you want to win loses

Please keep this clean and I will try to pick bands that people know of.

The first battle will be between....
Kiss and Aerosmith

4,274 Replies

offline

waluigi

1,946 posts

Shepherd

Posted October 6, '12 5:44pm UTC

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!!!!

offline

Salvidian

4,170 posts

Farmer

Posted October 6, '12 6:08pm UTC

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?

[b]The Beatles[/b]. 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.\r\n\r\nThe 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.\r\n\r\nHere, look at some of the worlds records they hold:\r\n\r\nMost Christmas No.1 Singles In UK Chart\r\nMost Consecutive Christmas No.1 Singles - UK\r\nMost Consecutive No.1 Singles In The UK Chart\r\nMost No.1 Singles On US Chart\r\nMost Platinum RIAA Certificates For A Group\r\nMost Successful Songwriting Duo\r\nMost US Chart No. 1 Albums By A Group\r\nMost Albums On US Chart Simultaneously\r\nMost Recorded Song ([i]Yesterday[/i])\r\nMost Valuable Pop Memorabilia ([i]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.[/i])\r\n\r\nAmong 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.\r\n\r\nEven after the Beatles split up, each individual Beatles had a phenomenal musical career. Paul McCartney's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wings_(band)]Wings[/url], John Lennon's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lennon]solo career[/url], George Harrison's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Harrison#Solo_work:_1968.E2.80.931987]huge benefit stuff, like Concert for Bangladesh[/url], and Ringo Starr's [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringo_Starr]solo career[/url].\r\n\r\nNeed I say more?

offline

xxsneaky

105 posts

Nomad

Posted October 6, '12 7:06pm UTC

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.

offline

Cherezig

58 posts

Nomad

Posted October 6, '12 9:46pm UTC

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.

offline

Skulltivator

630 posts

Nomad

Posted October 6, '12 9:55pm UTC

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.

offline

fries

92 posts

Nomad

Posted October 7, '12 9:06pm UTC

neither ha i hete both bands

offline

Fyrefox

2,124 posts

Blacksmith

Posted October 8, '12 2:17am UTC

neither ha i hete both bands

That was completely unnecessary... Why waste a post?

Back on topic, I'm going to have to go with, The Rolling Stones. I personally prefer their style over, The Beatles.

I like the edginess of some Rolling Stones songs and really never got into the Beatles... I just didn't like their lyrics, but the music was written well.

John Lennon was a great musician though and was definitely one of my idols when I first started learning how to play guitar.

I've listened to both and know quite a bit about each, but my vote goes to...

The Rolling Stones

This was a great match-up.

offline

MrDayCee

14,745 posts

King

Posted October 8, '12 11:31am UTC

Sorry, forgot to check with waluigi and that;s why I missed out on posting the battle with it's poster here... better late than never! Here it is:

And the first score roundup shows a surprising lead for the Stones! I'm amazed!
__________________________________________________

2 - THE BEATLES
-VS-
3 - THE ROLLING STONES
__________________________________________________

Let's see if this battle can stay as close as it is now! This should be interesting! =D

offline

fries

92 posts

Nomad

Posted October 8, '12 1:57pm UTC

i really hate both bands dont judge me

offline

Salvidian

4,170 posts

Farmer

Posted October 10, '12 9:25pm UTC

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.

I don't understand. You said "retrosepctive," which really threw your entire point off in a random spiraling direction. In retrospective, The Beatles made incredible pop and psychedelia through use of African beats as a result of African Diaspora. It was nothing people have never heard before, and it was inspired by African music being spread throughout the world from the idea of slaves ending. It was a first, and therefore, started everything. If something begins a completely new genre of popular accepted music (accepted as good music, I mind you), you can't call it mediocre.

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.

Ironically, before George Martin gave The Beatles their big break, John Lennon had lead the band into a type of sound that was unbelievably rebellious. They sang of anything you can think of, from drugs to alcohol, to sex and tons of censored words. Of course, they were forced to "sell-out" quite a bit after they decided to make some real money.

i really hate both bands dont judge me

What's not to like? I, like many other people, think they're incredible bands.

[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nI don't understand. You said "retrosepctive," which really threw your entire point off in a random spiraling direction. In retrospective, The Beatles made incredible pop and psychedelia through use of African beats as a result of African Diaspora. It was nothing people have never heard before, and it was inspired by African music being spread throughout the world from the idea of slaves ending. It was a first, and therefore, started everything. If something begins a completely new genre of popular accepted music (accepted as [i]good[/i] music, I mind you), you can't call it mediocre.\r\n\r\n[quote]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.[/quote]\r\n\r\nIronically, before George Martin gave The Beatles their big break, John Lennon had lead the band into a type of sound that was unbelievably rebellious. They sang of anything you can think of, from drugs to alcohol, to sex and tons of censored words. Of course, they were forced to "sell-out" quite a bit after they decided to make some real money.\r\n\r\n[quote]i really hate both bands dont judge me[/quote]\r\n\r\nWhat's not to like? I, like many other people, think they're incredible bands.

offline

HahiHa

8,255 posts

Regent

Posted October 14, '12 9:15am UTC

The Beatles. Besides everything that Salvidian said, I'd like to add.. both were great bands, but of both, the sound of The Rolling Stones doesn't stick to me like the one of The Beatles does. I really like some of the Stones' songs, but I like pretty much everything coming from the Beatles.

offline

hersheykissxoxo

7 posts

Nomad

Posted October 19, '12 11:00pm UTC

[b]I like the Beatles (:

offline

BravoTangoRomeo1993

9 posts

Nomad

Posted October 20, '12 9:43pm UTC

i say Beatles hands down! "Gimme Shelter" V.S. "Sergeant Peppers (and The Lonely Hearts Club Band)" (the most popular songs by both bands where i come from) no doubt beatles win!

offline

Skulltivator

630 posts

Nomad

Posted October 20, '12 9:51pm UTC

Of course, they were forced to "sell-out" quite a bit after they decided to make some real money.

Which band sold out and which band kept their rebellious sound? This is why I voted for the Stones.

That was two weeks ago. Why is this battle still going on?

offline

Salvidian

4,170 posts

Farmer

Posted October 21, '12 1:39am UTC

Which band sold out and which band kept their rebellious sound? This is why I voted for the Stones.

They were forced to. They were living in the back of a bar in a little 1 room aprtment. All 4 of them. They didn't shower, wash their clothes, and were living off of tips.

What would you have done?

Showing 3901-3915 of 4274

Categories

Quests

Community

Forums → Popular Media → Battle of the Bands: Locked due to inactivity. (Page ...)