Quote:
Originally Posted by lucylamppost
The Beatles
their ratio of good to bad songs isn't too high percentage wise, they lacked the soul, style, and grit of The Rolling Stones, the were very formulated when writing their songs
If the Beatles played Wood stock would there performance been more noted on music terms (not on hype) Santana, the Who, Sly and Family Stone, ****, even CSNY or The Beatles?
|
That's not being fair to the Beatles really, they weren't a live show band and personally I wouldn't have wanted to the Beatles to be anything like the Rolling Stones. I don't understand the comparison between the two. Also how were the Beatles formulated when writing their songs? And since you're comparing them to the Stones how does that same thing not apply to the Stones?