Here it is, the final match, one that a lot of people would call back in the 80's and 90's
Rolling Stones (1960s- early 1970s) vs. Guns 'N Roses (1980s-early 1990s)
2007-12-21 06:45:08 · 9 answers · asked by Jim#1 4 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music ➔ Rock and Pop
Stones without a doubt.
2007-12-21 06:50:57 · answer #1 · answered by NJGit 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd have to go with Gun's N' Roses although I really think Axl is a major a$$hole. I think the Rolling Stones are entirely over played and earned too much fame than they deserved. That's right, I said it. I do have to say though that the Rolling Stones are a lot bigger then Guns N' Roses, so comparing the two really isn't fair. I think comparing the Rolling Stones to say Aerosmith or Led Zeplin would of made for a better argument.
2007-12-21 14:57:32 · answer #2 · answered by Tesla Girl is Rokken with Dokken 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Stones.
Even though I'm a Sr 90...The Stones are a WAY better band than GNR. I loved GNR, but they were just an OK band. Live, they sucked! Slash was great, Axl sucked.
2007-12-21 15:00:53 · answer #3 · answered by WTFever 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Stones, first round KO
2007-12-21 15:04:04 · answer #4 · answered by kontrolfreak66 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Love the stones but GN'R win this one hands down.
2007-12-21 20:51:31 · answer #5 · answered by Mandy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Rolling Stones
Even when GN'R were at their peak, they weren't as good as the Stones.
2007-12-21 14:53:28 · answer #6 · answered by Lady Silver Rose * Wolf 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Stones.....NO question what-so-ever!
2007-12-21 14:51:58 · answer #7 · answered by Next evolutionary step... 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stones, no competition there.
2007-12-21 15:02:28 · answer #8 · answered by Beatle fanatic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yea, stones easily, way more diversity(nothing against gnr)
2007-12-21 17:20:43 · answer #9 · answered by sabes99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋