Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Stones, or Queen Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, the bear, DerekL, alicefoeller Reply
 
 
of 3
 
 
Stones, or Queen
OptionResults
The Rolling Stones37 Votes - [40.22%]
Queen55 Votes - [59.78%]

2012-06-08 10:10 AM

User image

Elite
3277
20001000100100252525
Minnetonka
Subject: Stones, or Queen
Who do you like better... ?


2012-06-08 10:29 AM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Expert
1566
10005002525
Prattville Insane Asylum San Antonio
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
Why must you make me choose???  Tongue out
2012-06-08 10:37 AM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
No contest, Queen.

2012-06-08 11:22 AM
in reply to: #4251675

Iron Donkey
38643
50005000500050005000500050002000100050010025
, Wisconsin
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
Neither. Motorhead.
2012-06-08 11:26 AM
in reply to: #4251761

User image

Champion
15211
500050005000100100
Southern Chicago Suburbs, IL
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

DanielG - 2012-06-08 10:37 AM No contest, Queen.

Couldn't agree more.  Still sad I never got to see Freddie perform live. 

2012-06-08 11:26 AM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Pro
5011
5000
Twin Cities
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
I love love love the stones...but Queen is my all-time fave.


2012-06-08 11:32 AM
in reply to: #4251897

User image

Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
crowny2 - 2012-06-08 12:26 PM

DanielG - 2012-06-08 10:37 AM No contest, Queen.

Couldn't agree more.  Still sad I never got to see Freddie perform live. 



I did

Also John Bonham and Keith Moon. I'm glad I did, too.

2012-06-08 11:57 AM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Elite
3091
20001000252525
Spokane, WA
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

No contest, The Rolling Stones--the "World's Greatest Rock and Roll Band".

When you look at the bodies of work, it is literally no contest. When I think of Queen, I think of the stadium music--"We will rock you", "We are the champions", "Another one bites the dust". Good songs, sure, but hardly what I would call great song writing. The Stones wrote some GREAT songs.

2012-06-08 12:14 PM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Master
1970
10005001001001001002525
Somewhere on the Tennessee River
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

Queen, just by a hair, though.  

Saw Freddie and the boys in 1977 and 1986.     Two very different shows that I enjoyed immensely.

 

Never got to see the Stones.    Alas......

2012-06-08 1:54 PM
in reply to: #4251735

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

ecozenmama - 2012-06-08 11:29 AM Why must you make me choose???  Tongue out

I'm not gonna!

2012-06-08 1:56 PM
in reply to: #4251915

User image

Champion
11989
500050001000500100100100100252525
Philly 'burbs
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
DanielG - 2012-06-08 12:32 PM
crowny2 - 2012-06-08 12:26 PM

DanielG - 2012-06-08 10:37 AM No contest, Queen.

Couldn't agree more.  Still sad I never got to see Freddie perform live. 

I did Also John Bonham and Keith Moon. I'm glad I did, too.

Dude, you're old.

I saw Bonham, but none of the other referenced.



2012-06-08 2:18 PM
in reply to: #4251761

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

DanielG - 2012-06-08 11:37 AM No contest, Queen.

x2.  Freddy Mercury was a genius.

2012-06-08 2:26 PM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Master
2496
2000100100100100252525
Atlanta, Georgia
Gold member
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
In one million years, I never would have even guessed this was a question.
2012-06-08 2:29 PM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Champion
6786
50001000500100100252525
Two seat rocket plane
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

Queen would never have existed had the Rolling Stones not been there first.

2012-06-08 6:07 PM
in reply to: #4252213

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

alltom1 - 2012-06-08 2:26 PM In one million years, I never would have even guessed this was a question.

alltom1, where you been man? Great to hear from you.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 2:29 PM

Queen would never have existed had the Rolling Stones not been there first.

Thank you rlysi!

The Rolling Stones are one of the five most influential recording artists of the rock era, behind Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, and the Velvet Underground.

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

Music is very personal. If you like Queen, there's nothing wrong with that. I like Queen myself. But a comparison to the Stones is ludicrous.

Want a more objective measure?

If the Stones came out of nowhere, recorded Exile on Main Street, and disappeared, their artistic output would have easily outstripped that of Queen. And nearly every other band of the rock era, for that matter.

But they also released Let it Bleed. and Beggars Banquet. and Sticky Fingers. That's four albums (Nos. 7, 32, 57, and 63) in the first hundred of Rolling Stone magazine's Top 500 Albums of All Time. You can find five more Stones albums before you get to the sole Queen album on the list, A Night at the Opera, at #239. Stones have 13 total albums on that list. I would defy most casual fans to name even two Queen albums.

How can Queen even be mentioned in the same breath?


2012-06-08 7:58 PM
in reply to: #4252527

User image

Champion
6786
50001000500100100252525
Two seat rocket plane
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
the bear - 2012-06-08 6:07 PM

alltom1 - 2012-06-08 2:26 PM In one million years, I never would have even guessed this was a question.

alltom1, where you been man? Great to hear from you.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 2:29 PM

Queen would never have existed had the Rolling Stones not been there first.

Thank you rlysi!

The Rolling Stones are one of the five most influential recording artists of the rock era, behind Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, and the Velvet Underground.

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

Music is very personal. If you like Queen, there's nothing wrong with that. I like Queen myself. But a comparison to the Stones is ludicrous.

Want a more objective measure?

If the Stones came out of nowhere, recorded Exile on Main Street, and disappeared, their artistic output would have easily outstripped that of Queen. And nearly every other band of the rock era, for that matter.

But they also released Let it Bleed. and Beggars Banquet. and Sticky Fingers. That's four albums (Nos. 7, 32, 57, and 63) in the first hundred of Rolling Stone magazine's Top 500 Albums of All Time. You can find five more Stones albums before you get to the sole Queen album on the list, A Night at the Opera, at #239. Stones have 13 total albums on that list. I would defy most casual fans to name even two Queen albums.

How can Queen even be mentioned in the same breath?


This is truth.Read it.


2012-06-08 8:00 PM
in reply to: #4252527

User image

Champion
10668
500050005001002525
Tacoma, Washington
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

the bear - 2012-06-08 4:07 PM

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

I weep for your blasphemy.

2012-06-08 8:43 PM
in reply to: #4252648

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
briderdt - 2012-06-08 8:00 PM

the bear - 2012-06-08 4:07 PM

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

I weep for your blasphemy.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 7:58 PM This is truth.Read it.

2012-06-08 9:20 PM
in reply to: #4252527

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
the bear - 2012-06-08 7:07 PM

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

3rd tier.. no way.  But gotta agree with you on Rush.  Never understood the fascination with them.

2012-06-08 9:37 PM
in reply to: #4251675

User image

Master
2538
200050025
Albuquerque
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

Each band (even Rush) was revolutionary in their own way and each have influenced many, many bands that have come after them. 

2012-06-08 10:16 PM
in reply to: #4252647

User image

Expert
1145
100010025
Ann Arbor, MI
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 8:58 PM
the bear - 2012-06-08 6:07 PM

alltom1 - 2012-06-08 2:26 PM In one million years, I never would have even guessed this was a question.

alltom1, where you been man? Great to hear from you.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 2:29 PM

Queen would never have existed had the Rolling Stones not been there first.

Thank you rlysi!

The Rolling Stones are one of the five most influential recording artists of the rock era, behind Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, and the Velvet Underground.

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

Music is very personal. If you like Queen, there's nothing wrong with that. I like Queen myself. But a comparison to the Stones is ludicrous.

Want a more objective measure?

If the Stones came out of nowhere, recorded Exile on Main Street, and disappeared, their artistic output would have easily outstripped that of Queen. And nearly every other band of the rock era, for that matter.

But they also released Let it Bleed. and Beggars Banquet. and Sticky Fingers. That's four albums (Nos. 7, 32, 57, and 63) in the first hundred of Rolling Stone magazine's Top 500 Albums of All Time. You can find five more Stones albums before you get to the sole Queen album on the list, A Night at the Opera, at #239. Stones have 13 total albums on that list. I would defy most casual fans to name even two Queen albums.

How can Queen even be mentioned in the same breath?


This is truth.Read it.

Brilliant.  Nothing else to add.  



2012-06-08 10:17 PM
in reply to: #4251897

User image

Pro
4824
20002000500100100100
Houston
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
crowny2 - 2012-06-08 11:26 AM

DanielG - 2012-06-08 10:37 AM No contest, Queen.

Couldn't agree more.  Still sad I never got to see Freddie perform live. 

This. I miss Freddie more now than when he died. I didn't appreciate his genius.
2012-06-09 6:25 PM
in reply to: #4251675

Veteran
185
100252525
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
Apples vs. oranges.  Both bands got their start in different eras.  The Stones have been around much longer than Queen.  Freddy Mercury had a great voice, but he didn't have nine lives like Keith Moon.  The Stones still rock!

Edited by punkster 2012-06-09 6:25 PM
2012-06-09 6:29 PM
in reply to: #4253378

User image

Resident Curmudgeon
25290
50005000500050005000100100252525
The Road Back
Gold member
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen

punkster - 2012-06-09 6:25 PM Apples vs. oranges.  Both bands got their start in different eras.  The Stones have been around much longer than Queen.  Freddy Mercury had a great voice, but he didn't have nine lives like Keith Moon.  The Stones still rock!

Stones still rock but Keith Moon used up his lives years ago. Nor was he ever a Stone. Partied with them I'm sure, but you're probably thinking of the other Keef, Richards. Lot of mileage on that one.

2012-06-09 6:47 PM
in reply to: #4252774

User image

Champion
16151
50005000500010001002525
Checkin' out the podium girls
Subject: RE: Stones, or Queen
yeats - 2012-06-08 11:16 PM

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 8:58 PM
the bear - 2012-06-08 6:07 PM

alltom1 - 2012-06-08 2:26 PM In one million years, I never would have even guessed this was a question.

alltom1, where you been man? Great to hear from you.

ride_like_u_stole_it - 2012-06-08 2:29 PM

Queen would never have existed had the Rolling Stones not been there first.

Thank you rlysi!

The Rolling Stones are one of the five most influential recording artists of the rock era, behind Elvis, The Beatles, Dylan, and the Velvet Underground.

Queen, by comparison, is a third tier band at best. (Better than Rush, though!)

Music is very personal. If you like Queen, there's nothing wrong with that. I like Queen myself. But a comparison to the Stones is ludicrous.

Want a more objective measure?

If the Stones came out of nowhere, recorded Exile on Main Street, and disappeared, their artistic output would have easily outstripped that of Queen. And nearly every other band of the rock era, for that matter.

But they also released Let it Bleed. and Beggars Banquet. and Sticky Fingers. That's four albums (Nos. 7, 32, 57, and 63) in the first hundred of Rolling Stone magazine's Top 500 Albums of All Time. You can find five more Stones albums before you get to the sole Queen album on the list, A Night at the Opera, at #239. Stones have 13 total albums on that list. I would defy most casual fans to name even two Queen albums.

How can Queen even be mentioned in the same breath?


This is truth.Read it.

Brilliant.  Nothing else to add.  



Truth. Sympathy for the Devil>>>you're my best friend.

Really, not a contest.
New Thread
Other Resources My Cup of Joe » Stones, or Queen Rss Feed  
 
 
of 3