Quote:
Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger
I just think it`s unfair to claim the Beatles are better than the Stones because the Stones lost in it the 70s when the Beatles couldn`t even hold it together in that decade .So if we are comparing decades why not mention what they did elsewhere.
|
That's a fair point...although you compared the Beatles to the Stones as live acts, when the Beatles stopped touring before they were fully matured as a band and before their style was fully developed.
It seems that when albums are the everlasting representation of a band in top form and sounding exactly as they wanted to, quality of albums is a lot more important here than quality as a live act. After all, the album is what led Rock & Roll on the transition from youth fad to art.
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.
Threaded Mode