See?... Even the major Stones fanboys are with me on this one, and you're still being just as ignorant as you are about KISS.
Both became popular by playing rock n roll, but when both started going psychedelic in 67 it's fairly obvious which one pulled it off and which one did not.
I'm not denying that The Stones are indeed quite a versatile band, having covered everything from blues to country to soul to funk, they clearly deserve a lot of respect... And they could change it up album after album too, but The Beatles could change it up song after song, and thats one reason they are considered to be the more innovative band, they were doing everything including the kitchen sink at a time when such things were not heard of in rock music, let alone acceptible, they experiemented with many studio techniques which were unorthodox of at the time but are hugely taken for granted today.
The Stones were more important when it came to the attitude elements of modern music, but The Beatles are respsonsable for the experimental aspect of it, theres no denying that The Stones were cooler, nastier and overall more badass, but they are by no means more diverse or experimental than The Beatles.
Also your more members example is ridiculous, The Polyphonic Spree has more members than Radiohead, you tell me which one is more diverse.
|