Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Keith Richards will always be cooler than Pete Townshend - that's an unarguable scientific fact.
|
No he isn't; no it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Plus Keith Richards was more knowledgeable on actually playing blues guitar than Pete.
|
That's as may be, but who cares about blues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Charlie Watts is a much more talented hands down, he's a much more versatile drummer than Loony Moony ever was.
|
Talented in that he stuck to what he did best - pure timekeeping - yes, but who needs timekeeping when you can get the rolls from "I can see for miles" or "Bargain"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Nothing wrong paying homage to Blues and R&B artist that were influences - the Stone paved the way for Blues-Rock of the 60's and 70's.
|
Yeah yeah, blues blah blah blah authencity heritage whateverage. I don't want blues, I want originality!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
The Rolling Stones is a better band overall than The Who. The Beatles had popularity The Rolling Stones had talent and The Who were loud - loud doesn't mean talented.
|
I don't deny the Stones their talent, but Beatles and Who simply had more vision and progressivity in their respective talent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
yes if we have to compare 
|
That's first of all from the movie, second of all performed by Elton John, third of all a Who original, fourth of all not a solo performance.
indeed.