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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-19-2008, 05:45 AM   #1 (permalink)
Account Disabled
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: London
Posts: 466
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger View Post
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.
You ever done lsd Urban my ill informed foe?
Then you'd understand the childlike quality of the songs.
Lsd is not smack or morphine hence the difference in the lyrics Urban.
Urban your opinions are quaint but still your opinion.
The stones were more rock and the beatles were more melody.
ADELE is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Similar Threads



© 2003-2025 Advameg, Inc.