|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-03-2011, 01:46 PM | #6442 (permalink) | |
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
Quote:
I tend to think of Dad rock as dreary 90s music like Cast, Paul Weller, The La's & Ocean Colour Scene.
__________________
Urb's RYM Stuff Most people sell their soul to the devil, but the devil sells his soul to Nick Cave. |
|
07-03-2011, 04:13 PM | #6446 (permalink) |
Buzz Killjoy
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
|
I have to diagree with that. Beatles are more consistent. Stones had 8 great years to about 40 bad ones. The Stones are better if you like image over art I think.
But to each their own.
__________________
last.fm "I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey. |
07-03-2011, 04:52 PM | #6447 (permalink) | |||
carpe musicam
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
|
Quote:
Quote:
And another good comparison to Classic Rock which is very similar both in name and conundrum is Classical Music. The Classical period fell between Baroque and Romantic period, but there is constant use of the term "Classical Music" for what should be properly called Art Music, for the average listen considers all forms of Art Music as "Classical Music" - lol what would the lower classes do next, pray tell? I would only include certain Metal bands that were back in the 70's like Led Zeppelin, Sabbath, and Deep Purple as "Classic Rock." And it wouldn't make sense to subsume Punk into Classic Rock when the whole point of Punk Rock was to rebel against the direction Prog Rock and Classical Rock was taking. What happens when a name for a genre start encompassing everything else it looses its (original) meaning. Folk e.g. lost it's original meaning and what use to be called Folk is now call Traditional.
__________________
Quote:
"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 |
|||
07-03-2011, 07:04 PM | #6448 (permalink) |
Divination
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,655
|
There's really no comparison of the two. I like the blues/rock aspect of listening to the Stones music more so than listening to the Beatles. (Image over art)?.. Never! I don't hold image into account when personally rating a bands music. Race, genre, popularity, etc. Strictly the music only. I like the Beatles..I just prefer the basic, Blues/Rock rhythm section approach of the Stones music over the Beatles.
|
07-03-2011, 07:45 PM | #6450 (permalink) |
Buzz Killjoy
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,692
|
To me The Stones were just always riding the coat tails of The Beatles. Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper", Stones put out the "Their Satanic Majesties Request" album, which was more less their attempt to emulate what The Beatles were doing with their experimentation at the time... hell Paul and John are even on the album...
I like The Stones, but I find The Beatles to be the better of the 2 personally. While yes, both bands had an image, I always felt like The Stones were more focused on the image, while The Beatles were focused more on the art. Both have their place, but I think years from now when new generations look back on what was happening at the time, and a lot of the stuff we know now will be largely forgotten by anybody not a music historian... The Beatles will go down as more important. But I won't be alive to find out first hand, so I won't know..
__________________
last.fm "I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey. |
|