Alfred

Everybody must get stoned.

__________________

boo boo

Yes and melodically I really love their music.

I can appreciate lyrics if theres great music to go with it, this is why I'd take Neil Young over Dylan any deal of the weak. Melodically he's just a lot better.

More like like take away EVH's guitar playing, David Lees vocals and the really solid drumming of Alex Van Halen and then what do you have? Well Michael Anthony, but at least he had a great backup singing voice.

And you can't compare lyrics to guitar, two very different things, and honestly, I care more about the technical aspects of the music, vocals, instrument, production, etc. Lyrics just add a story, but if the music isn't interesting, then I don't care about the lyrics, because then its just someone reciting poetry.

If the music sounds great, has a great atmosphere to it and theres some great lyrics to go with it, than thats much more preferable. Thats why I'd take Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull and Gabriel era Genesis over Bob Dylan any day of the week.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

ProggyMan

Uh, what? Dylan's got plenty of great melodies they just tend to be sparser than Young's. He's a much better lyricist as well.

boo boo

He has some great songs. But its kinda sparse among his entire discography. A lot of stuff just bores me.

It should be said though, that as a prog fan, my idea of boring may not be on par with everyone elses idea of boring.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

ProggyMan

Well yah, a good deal of his work is total ****. But he's writes great melodies and his 60's stuff is very adventurous. His lyrics are the focal point though, they make the songs. They're funny and entertaining, have some great insights and drive the songs.

TheBig3

The stones gift was to play soulful music with actual soul. Anyone can experiment. Its hard to do music from all regions and influences and make them sound like legitimate songs.

Every time I hear the Beatles cover Motown I think "oh lord, Karoke is revenge for WWII" The Beatles wee talented but they couldn't feel the music and John Lennon was just about the most soulless writer out there. Its not bad music it just don't hit you somewhere deeper and his solo work was even worse which leads me to believe someone in the Beatles was pulling the weight (I suspect Harrison.)

You can say what you want about the stones but I've heard Cherry O Baby and I've heard a Beatles sung covered by reggae singers and the authenticity behind the former was head and shoulders above the latter.

People don't wake up overrated and their no where near teh Beatles of Zeppelin or even the Who. The stones have earned everything they have, i wish people would see that you can't charge $400 for a ticket because you go lucky. Their untouchable live, and they can scorch every other band playing out there.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

ProggyMan

I think the Stones are proof that not 'anyone can experiment' .

TheBig3

How are the stones proof? Use your 16 year old girl emoticons all you want but I'm not the jackass with that avatar.

And no I didn't. You however ought to be band for your use of the exclamation point.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

ProggyMan

It's confusing when you respond to two people at once. And what's with the hostility? Did I hurt your feelings or something? Their Satanic Majesties...

Urban Hat€monger ?

What about it?

That album was a huge influence on quite a few post punk bands , Echo and the Bunnymen probably being the most successful.

And The Stones have done R&B , Rock n Roll , Reggae , Soul , Funk , Pop as well as rock. We're not exactly talking about band who's songs all aound the same here like AC/DC or The Ramones.

__________________