Welcome to Music Banter Forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with over 70,000 other registered members. After you create your free account, you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 1,100,000 posts.
Keith Richards will always be cooler than Pete Townshend - that's an unarguable scientific fact.
No he isn't; no it isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Plus Keith Richards was more knowledgeable on actually playing blues guitar than Pete.
That's as may be, but who cares about blues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Charlie Watts is a much more talented hands down, he's a much more versatile drummer than Loony Moony ever was.
Talented in that he stuck to what he did best - pure timekeeping - yes, but who needs timekeeping when you can get the rolls from "I can see for miles" or "Bargain"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
Nothing wrong paying homage to Blues and R&B artist that were influences - the Stone paved the way for Blues-Rock of the 60's and 70's.
Yeah yeah, blues blah blah blah authencity heritage whateverage. I don't want blues, I want originality!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
The Rolling Stones is a better band overall than The Who. The Beatles had popularity The Rolling Stones had talent and The Who were loud - loud doesn't mean talented.
I don't deny the Stones their talent, but Beatles and Who simply had more vision and progressivity in their respective talent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neapolitan
yes if we have to compare
That's first of all from the movie, second of all performed by Elton John, third of all a Who original, fourth of all not a solo performance. indeed.
That's first of all from the movie, second of all performed by Elton John, third of all a Who original, fourth of all not a solo performance. 
Threaded Mode