Why does Any Forums talk so much about the beatles but not about their objectively superior counterpart?
Why does Any Forums talk so much about the beatles but not about their objectively superior counterpart?
Michael Moore
Other urls found in this thread:
Gavin James
Stones require testosterone to listen to. Beatles are pop, Stones are rock. Any Forums prefers pop.
Ryan Thomas
Holy hell, Charlie Watts looks like Vinnie Stigma here, like a skinhead. Stigma sucks though and Agnostic Front are a racist band.
Lincoln Nelson
stones have always been and will always be second fiddle, they're just not on the same level. plus, they've sullied their back catalogue with tepid entries post 1980.
Caleb Walker
and here i thought they were a safe band
David Nelson
Not memeworthy
Ian Baker
Because you just posted one of their worst albums
Gavin Young
Exile is so good bros
David Scott
English fairies ripping off old blues songs is not "objectively superior", its just fake and gay.
Asher Carter
thanks for that little anecdote
Logan Garcia
>English fairies ripping off old blues songs is not "objectively superior", its just fake and gay.
But enough about Zeppelin.
Nolan Young
The way i see it they completely came into their own shortly after The Beatles broke up. everything before that is sub par compared to them
Josiah Mitchell
Better than the beatles first. But that is just my preference.
Connor Butler
the work before that has lots of charm
Thomas Brooks
I'm not defending either of them tbqh.
Landon Howard
The Kinks?
John Murphy
Only Exile on Main St and maybe Let It Bleed if you're generous can be in the same discussion as post-Rubber Soul Beatles.
Juan Torres
All the blues guys at Chess Records respect the Stones, get fucked poser
William Lewis
Fpbp, this place was always dominated by art poofs
Easton Parker
>Stones aren't pop
lol lmao
Isaiah James
Fpbp. This is a (cancerous) poptimist board.
William Jackson
Only in 1967, their psych pop phase
Zachary Adams
Wrong.