10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles (lyrics, pop) - Music Banter Music Banter

Go Back   Music Banter > The Music Forums > Rock & Metal > Rock N Roll, Classic Rock & 60s Rock
Register Blogging Today's Posts
Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 01-23-2005, 02:12 AM   #11 (permalink)
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 jibber
point four basically makes no sense. Although the beatles were basically a mainstream pop band, they did write about meaningful things. Death, drugs (yes a lot of their songs were actually about drugs, just with codes in their lyrics because at the time the beatles came out, drugs were way more underground than when the stones came out), among those, the death of the monarchy and church in britain, alot of their songs are extremely deep, you're just not listening close enough, the meaning is there, but it's expressed through metaphors.
Drugs were 'mainstream' even before the beatles , the teddy boys used to swallow uppers & shoot speed in the late 50s early 60s just as much as the punks did in the 70s. Yes you are right , the Beatles did sing about drugs , but they dressed them up with so many metaphores they ended up sounding like childrens nursary rhymes. Just listen to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds & then go listen to Sister Morphine & tell me which song has the more realistic portrayal of drugs.
Urban Hat€monger ? is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.