Mick Jagger inducts The Beatles Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum inductions 1988

Mick Jagger inducts The Beatles Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum inductions 1988

Category:

Music

Tags:

• Mick
• Jagger
• inducts
• The
• Beatles
• Rock
• and
• Roll
• Hall
• of
• Fame
• Museum
• inductions
• 1988

[xEdddie]

@markmywords312 Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Sam Cooke, Fats Domino.

[RobsClassics1]

There's still not a band around since 1964 that can touch them,and never will be....the Beatles are in a class by themselves...no doubt

[hermanoarnoldo]

@Akumashef 18-20 years? Mate the Beatles were together for less than a decade!

[oninguem1]

@MrLizardisle I am a collector of music too. Unfortunately I disagree about the Beatles and Stones comparison. Yes, indeed it is impossible to compare them. The Beatles is much, much bigger.

[2012SupportRONPAUL]

@RobsClassics Kanye West is a not only a master at what he does producing, but his music is terrific. Granted very different from the Beatles, Kayne West is a great artist, and may be a musical genius, the same can be said for John Lennon, Isaac Brock, Ben Gibbard, Nas, or any writer of that caliber. Now you have proven that you are not only foolish to declare any band "the best", but you also are ignorant to one of the best musicians since 1964 (Granted, Kayne is a fucking dickhead).

[RobsClassics1]

@2012SupportRONPAUL How can you mention Kanye West in the presence of greatness?...and never call me foolish whilst making a fool of yourself...like Ron Paul is doing..

[2012SupportRONPAUL]

@RobsClassics1 You my friend, are foolish. Music since the Beatles, good music that is, has changed many times. You are correct in saying that "the Beatles are in a class by themselves" because they are. However, if the Beatles are in a class of their own then so are Nirvana, Arcade Fire, Kanye West, Led Zepplin, Radiohead and the rest of the infinitely talented musical world. Because to say one of these great artist is better than another is impossible..Alright anyway, Conor Oberst is best!

[Akumashef]

Some of you are pretty short sighted. It's not a competition. It's about the music. The Beatles were together for 18-20 years and the Stones for a two score and a decade +. The only way they compare is the music. Besides, If not for the music we would NOT care.

[MrDeadsurfer]

It's funny how the Stones and Beatles were friends, but many of their fans can't stand the other. I like them both, but I respect the Stones a lot more because of their large body of excellent work. The Beatles didn't last too long.

[flimbambo]

Mick, probably the least charitable of the Stones towards the Beatles, is quite generous here. One problem though, he talks as though the Stones were playing clubs before he'd heard of them. This is utter bollocks, given that the Beatles had their first hit in '62.

I know the Stones didn't start gigging till '63 but even though they were 'darn sarf', as Mick said- they'd heard the record.

[twifofi]

@EvilAnticsLive sway

[EvilAnticsLive]

@lottaluck Oh, John Lennon said something, Beatles fans unite to suck his dick! Jesus Christ, you basically say, "since more people like the Beatles they're better." Huh? It's all about the fucking music. So anyday of the week the Stones' blues beats the Beatles pop/psychedelic shit. Listen to these Stones' tunes and tell me they sound the same; Doncha Bother Me, Dandelion, Moonlight Mile, Cherry Oh Baby, Emotional Rescue, Hang Fire, Undercover of the Night. The Stones' have played every genre.