Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jibber
I agree that the beatles were more influential than the stones, but how does that make them a better band? For that matter, how do record sales make them a better band either? The beatles were a pop band, so it stands to reason that they'd be pretty damn popular. The stones, while hugely popular, were always a rock band. taking it a step further, you could argue that because Britney spears has sold more records than the stones, she's a better artist than the stones.
|
Your reasoning is fallacious, and some of your facts incorrect.
No, the Stones weren't always a rock band. They've released a lot of pop tunes (and crappy pop at that), and even stooped so low as to record disco-style songs.
The Beatles were immensely popular because of the sheer greatness of their music, not because it was their goal to write popular songs. Songs like "Helter Skelter", "I am the Walrus" and "Revolution #9"--as well most of their other songs--certainly weren't written with "popularity" in mind.
AC/DC has always played ear-splitting hard rock, and they've done it so well that their music has become popular with many people. But that doesn't mean their music belongs in the "pop" music genre. Pop music is Britney Spears, the Backstreet Boys and other "fluff stuff".