Music Banter - View Single Post - 10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
View Single Post
Old 07-06-2011, 02:43 PM   #369 (permalink)
Neapolitan
carpe musicam
 
Neapolitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Les Barricades Mystérieuses
Posts: 7,710
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by starrynight View Post
I think this, as it was brought up, was more about whether The Rolling Stones were the first western group to use a sitar or not. The wikipedia page I linked comes from that perspective. Anyway I don't care who was the first, the fact is The Rolling Stones weren't and that they just followed what The Beatles did.
Nah, nah, nah, the Stones started as Blues band and had their own influences i.e. American Blues and R&B - how much do you even know about the Stones? And really if anyone followed anyone it was The Beatles that followed The Shadows and lifted the Shad's sound, 'beat music,' wholesale in the beginning.

Yeah ok, the Stones didn't stick to one formula (the Blues) during the 60's and changed their sound along with every other band in the 60s, they weren't following The Beatles anticipating their every move. If anything they inspired each other, and their are some instances where the Stones were innovators. I don't understand why you want to make the Stones out to be lost puppies following The Beatles. I'll admit I like The Beatles but there is this mythologizing of The Beatles that I quite don't understand.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by mord View Post
Actually, I like you a lot, Nea. That's why I treat you like ****. It's the MB way.

"it counts in our hearts" ?ºº?
“I have nothing to offer anybody, except my own confusion.” Jack Kerouac.
“If one listens to the wrong kind of music, he will become the wrong kind of person.” Aristotle.
"If you tried to give Rock and Roll another name, you might call it 'Chuck Berry'." John Lennon
"I look for ambiguity when I'm writing because life is ambiguous." Keith Richards
Neapolitan is offline   Reply With Quote