Quote:
Originally Posted by thedaytripper
The beatles were far better than the rolling stones. no questions asked. they went from pop icons, who delivered awesome british tone to us, to psychedelic crooners who increased our hope during vietnam, to poetic rock legends.
|
What a load of needless triffling hyperbole.
Quote:
|
George Harrison (R.I.P.) was silent and had no ego while completely owning keith richards on guitar.
|
Um, the hell? Good grief. If you can prove that Harrison was even half as dexterous on guitar as Richards, I'll be impressed. Barring that, your statement has absolutely no justification whatsover. Harrison of the 60s was merely a competent player: unpretentious and unspectacular. Hell, he wasn't even confident enough in his skills (or lack thereof) to play the solo his own best piece.
Quote:
|
Paul McCartney was and is one of the greatest musicians ever
|
songwriters*,
Quote:
|
and R.I.P. John who was incredible on the mic, the guitar, piano, and the grindstone.
|
He was a great vocalist. He was not a good instrumentalist in any sense of the word and anybody who claims so is an utter idiot.
Plainly you are not a Rolling Stones fan of any sort, so it's better that you don't start talking about how they do or do not compare to your favourite band.