Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 04-27-2012, 11:57 PM   #405 (permalink)
Neapolitan
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown Soldier View Post
That`s not really correct is it, I can tell you that being from the UK, that far more people know who the Stones are than the Who and that the Stones were seen as always being the bigger band! The Rolling Stones and the Beatles are really the crowning pinnacle of fame, popularity and influence of all rock music in the UK and are without doubt the biggest two historically. The Who and say Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd etc are kind of like the next level down, usually only well known by the 40 plus age group or those younger listeners that have an appreciation of music. The other bands such as the Searchers and the Hollies etc are really only remembered by the music buying public at that time anyway.

I was at school when the Jam were around and despite not liking Paul Weller their albums were pretty tight with attitude. Again I wouldn`t compare them with the Who! The Who were four outstanding artists and Daltrey a vocalist in the same category as Plant if not even better, whereas Weller just sounded like a football hooligan in front of a microphone, who just happened to have left wing leanings and singing about life in the UK at that time. The only link between the two is the Mod following that they had and the Jam taking influence from the early Who R&B sound. The Jam played a retro R&B sound infused with punk and they had plenty of attitude, Ray Davies and the Kinks were a big influence on the band as well. In fact, long before Britpop a number of bands at that time in the UK were greatly influenced by the Kinks such as the Boomtown Rats etc. I`d even say that the Kinks were far more of an influence of future UK bands than the Who ever were. As for the Jam now, they`re only really remembered from the Paul Weller connection.

I`d say the following for Joy Division has always remained steady especially since New Order were always a well known band as well.

In fact, the only British bands of the last 20 years that have reached the same heights in terms of prestige and popularity as the Beatles and the Stones here in the UK, are both Oasis and Blur and as is common knowledge both these bands were basically peddling retro sounds from the 60`s anyway.
I didn't say that The Who was more popular than The Rolling Stones, it's something I notice about Who fans they pretty much act like they are the only band that exist. I don't mind Robert Daltrey (I recognised that he was a strong singer) but I think others were really over-rated. John Paul Jones and John Bonham had more talented and provided a much better rhythm section than the Who's rhythm section. Paul Weller is a much much better guitar player than Pete Townsend. The Who really tanked with Tommy and didn't do anything impressive afterwards. I just think The Jam produced much better music in the 70s than The Who did e.g. David Watts > Eminence Front.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote