|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
01-27-2005, 08:06 PM | #31 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Places
Posts: 33
|
Allow me to rephrase:
The Rolling Stones were and will always be, Materialistic, Self-centred, rock-****s, who let their undeserved fame go straight to their heads and believe themselves to be semi-gods. Concieted? mais oui. EDIT - As I said earlier this is opinion so dont get defensive, because I'm not trying to be arguementative I'm just stating my opinion as were you. I dont think you were any less harsh. |
01-27-2005, 08:21 PM | #32 (permalink) | |
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
Quote:
|
|
01-28-2005, 04:48 PM | #34 (permalink) |
Modern Drummer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 947
|
This is extremely off topic, but notice in the picture of the Beatles that John Lennon, and Paul Mcartney are the only ones looking into the camera, and they are the only existing members..............spooky
|
01-28-2005, 05:11 PM | #35 (permalink) | |
The Sexual Intellectual
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Somewhere cooler than you
Posts: 18,605
|
Quote:
|
|
01-28-2005, 07:37 PM | #37 (permalink) |
Groupie
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Illinois by way of MA
Posts: 32
|
The real reason why the Stones were better was because, in their prime (Beggars Banquet through It's Only Rock and Roll, I'd say) they wrote fucking great blues and country-influenced rock, while The Beatles mainly did sometimes boring, drippy "experimental", "psychadelic" stuff that can be pretty tough to sit through unless you're in the mood (which pretty much means you have to be high). Their reputation definately precedes them.
|
|