Dr_Rez

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

Necromancer

See..that's the difference. I do know. (The Stones)

BastardofYoung

more opinion, less emoticoning.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

TockTockTock

I actually agree with BastardofYoung... at least in the comparison between The Rolling Stones and The Beatles. In this case, the Beatles DO focus on having a more "mature" and "artistic" approach to their sound. I always thought this was evidenced by Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club and The White Album. I mean... they have dipped in and out of genres, such as noise, proto-metal, and drone/ambient (just to name a few that stand out). They were also influential in the creation of prog rock. Sure, the majority of their musical output is based on safe and accessible song structures, but they are much more musically progressive than The Rolling Stones.

METALLICA_RULES

Nickelback are a good band.

Metal Connoisseur

I've always held the opinion that Bono can't sing a lick, and that his singing typically sounds forced and irks me to no end. Does anyone else feel this way? And Nickelback is just awful. No redeeming quality about that band.

Dr_Rez

In the beginning of there career they were all about there image. I mean they even had the same clothing and haircuts to give people whatever image they were aiming for there. I dont think its a slight against them as most bands/artists have this same phase they go through. Often they grow out of it and focus more about the sound then the image. I dont know how else to explain it.

__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew*
*Always Checks Credentials Crew*
*nba > nfl crew*
*Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew*

BastardofYoung

man, you would fit into Alberta if you like Nickleback. I am not a fan, and I have been threatened with being killed by people here for saying anything even remotely bad.

I remember my boss was friends with them, and I said to somebody that they suck one day, and he came out on our hour break, gave me the tough guy shoulder and said "what the f*ck did you say about my friends".... I said "nothing... they could be the nicest people in the world as far as I know, but musically they are awful"

People here take it seriously, cause they are "local boys" and think they have to protect them from harms way at all times.

I have lost count of how many times I will be talking music to a girl I think is hot, and get into my hatred for Nickleback... and then saying "okay, sorry... so who is your favorite band", just to hear an angry "Nickleback!"

Nickleback through are the embodiment of god awful benality in all that music. Mindless music, with boring riffs and dreadfully stupid sexist lyrics. F*ck em.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

BastardofYoung

Well, I believe all styles of music have some sort of image attatched to it. Be it rap, punk, rock, metal, country, classical, blues and so on... there is some sort of image... which is fine, but it, atleast to me, becomes a matter of... does the image overpower the art. Looking at blues, I would Blues Brothers are an example of image over art, they dress blues, but play total generic soulless versions of... while some may say they are great, i say they are about the image they put out, and hold em to it, and see em as just entertainment... granted they are essentially a comedy act on top, so maybe that is not the best example to use, but still makes my point.

The Beatles, yeah, started out as cute stuff that blended into the British Invasion scene, but overtime I think they grew much more into an artistic band than that of The Stones, they were always growing and experimenting and trying new things.. while The Stones, to me atleast, just kinda remained the same, only trying to evolve when another band was doing something.

The Stones I love, they were the bad boys, they had that element to em, that seemed more dangerous and out there than the cuteness of The Beatles. I say The Beatles were "i wanna hold your hand" and the Stones were just "i wanna f*ck you". Beatles were the nice boys you took home to mom and dad, Stones were the bad ass boys yer dad would of kicked the s*it out of... and I like that in rock n roll, do not get me wrong.

In the end who is better is personal preference, really no right answer as to which was the better band... i just feel The Beatles were always growing, while The Stones seemed to be happy in the same place.

__________________
last.fm

‎"I hope that someday we will be able to put away our fears and prejudices and just laugh at people." - Jack Handey.

Urban Hat€monger ?

Bon Jovi progressed their sound.

The Ramones didn't

Just sayin'

__________________