Music Banter - View Single Post - The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 01-12-2007, 10:53 AM   #394 (permalink)
Urban Hat€monger ?
The Sexual Intellectual
 
Urban Hat€monger ?'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strummer521 View Post

Certainly the Stones were influential, but not in the forward-thinking way of the Beatles who blended pop perfectly into the mix and changed the genre of Rock forever. It's because of them that Rock music is as diverse and eclectic as it is today.
I think people underestimate the Stones when it comes to that.When the Beatles did it they changed direction totally yet when the Stones did it it sounded more natural.

The Stones took inspiration from R&B , Rock n Roll , Blues , Funk , Soul , Disco , Gospal , Pop , even punk & psychadelia (badly) and blended it into their music more effortlessly than the Beatles ever did.

Personally i`m a fan of psychadelia but I hate the way the Beatles incorperated it into their music. They basically diluted it into 3 minute pop nursary rhymes.Thats always been my biggest problem with the Beatles they may have incorperated many different influences into their music but to me it was really watered down , if a band does that now they get slated for it.
The way the Stones do it , it doesn`t sound diluted because it sounds like a natural progression to what they do already.

I`m not saying one way is better than the other but I think because of the way the Stones did it they get less credit.
__________________



Urb's RYM Stuff

Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline