Band Face Off - Round 4

[trackaghost]

She's still the Queen of Pop in your eyes - Madonna slaughtered both Kate Bush and Sheryl Crow in Round 3, with 23 votes to Sheryl's 10 and Kate's 9.

Onto Round 4 and this one is the battle of the giants. Which will you choose?

Remember to defend your choice.


Results so far:

Round 1: Petty defeats Springsteen - 35 to 17

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22558

Round 2: Led Zeppelin defeats The Who - 21 to 18

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22596

Round 3: Madonna defeats Sheryl Crow and Kate Bush 23 to 10/9

http://ledge.fleetwoodmac.net/showthread.php?t=22631

The polls are still open!

[michelle2677]

OMG...why are you doing this to me???!!!
decisions decisions...o.k.....I'll go with the beatles... but I LOVE U2 as well...

[amber]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Remember to defend your choice.

uh, okay...I don't like the other two bands very much, and I do like the RS.

[GypsySorcerer]

I went with the Stones. I am not a fan of U2's. My favorite Beatles-related stuff if George Harrison's solo output. So the Stones it is.

[dissention]

The Stones, baby.

The Beatles are good, but overrated. U2 makes me violently ill and Bono can just suck it. That is all.

[ontheEdgeof17]

Rolling Stones.

U2 and the Beatles.....eh.

[Serrart]

Rolling Stones: i find their songs wilder and more real, and as a band they're more creative musicians, IMO.

Romy

[markolas]

Rolling Stones.

I don't really like the Beatles much at all and I totally don't get why people are so crazy about them.

U2 is okay, but I think they're way overrated. The only album of theirs I own is The Joshua Tree, which is greatness.

[WELSH WITCH]

Stones for me too.

[estranged4life]

as if I wouldnt pick the Beatles...Shee-haw right, and FEMA relief might fly out my butt.

Like all 3 bands equally, But picking between the 3 I have to give props to the Beatles (Though I love the Stones for sheer attitude )

Ps-We need some METAL in our polling diet...*hint* *hint*

[Neal]

Even though they're highly overrated, I went with U2 because I'm not familiar enough with the others. I'm kinda over them though, so I really have nothing to say in their defense...

[CreepingDeath]

The Beatles

I would have gone with U2, but everything since Pop has been pretty mediocre, imo. The early stuff is great though. I never got into The Rolling Stones.

[gldstwmn]

That was hard. I picked The Stones because I have been listening to them more as of late. I don't know though. Lennon, McCartney, Harrison (especially) and Starr all get lots of love from me. I'm still not sure I made the right choice.
U2 has done nothing but depress me the last few years.

[Serrart]

Originally Posted by Lux

Than The Beatles?? These must be different songs you're listening to. The other two are great bands that I really enjoy listening to but can't comprehend either of them being described as more creative than The Beatles. Ok so Ringo is excluded.

People don't get why The Beatles were considered to be brilliant? What the hell are you doing on a music related webspace? I understand that particular music isn't for everyone but that kind of statement is not related to enjoyment. Was Elvis overrated too?

I said as a band Lux. I find the Stones a more intriguing and creative musical unit than the Beatles, that I perceive mostly as Lennon+McCartney, with Harrison added sometimes and Starr very frequently as a shadow. Just one of my naive thoughts. I don't think Beatles are overrated but their apparently pink universe filled with black holes doesn't involve me emotionally as much as Rolling Stones.

Romy

P.S: Have you been in the time machine, Junior Ledgie?

[ryan8472]

U2...apparently I stand alone here.