Urban Hat€monger ?

They're a roots based blues rock band , they don't need to be experimental.

__________________

Veronica Lodge

i'm perhaps implying that they don't NEED to be experimental, but, rather, they are boring, and never took any steps to be different and isolate themselves from everyone else.

i can totally understand the likability of the stones, but to those who are into radio ready music.

it's just not for me.

__________________
- Veronica Lodge -


Yes, that IS what I said.

Comus

I'm still to see solid evidence that the Beatles truly experimented in anything rather than simply expand (if that) on the current trends of the scene of the time. I'm sorry but I don't see them as trendsetters, especially not within the scene. Sure they motivated many to create bands, but simply because of the feeling that "hey, that's easy, and will make me rich without talent, awesome"

__________________
last.fm

Veronica Lodge

!!! I think you are confused.

You can't see SOLID evidence of experimentation? Dude, the Beatles have sold like, a trillion albums. Have you actually listened to the Beatles?

And the Beatles didn't motivate everyone to form bands to make money. They are responsible for inspiring people to write CAPTIVATING music.

One of the things that I like most about them is that they were evolutionary. They started out as this quirky little boy band singing songs of innocence. And the next day, they were high as hell, sing about LSD, and peace and love, and whatever.

I took music history in University (I'm a music major), and I ASSURE you, the Beatles have attributed tons more than the Stone ever have, and considering they are STILL touring, that's saying alot.

__________________
- Veronica Lodge -


Yes, that IS what I said.

Comus

I'm sorry, I think you confused yourself for someone with a valid opinion worth my time.

__________________
last.fm

Veronica Lodge

I really don't see how my opinion isn't valid.

We are having a conversation, are we not?
And conversations are pretty uninteresting if everyone just agrees, don't you think?

I'm not trying to personally attack you at all, and I apologize if it's come off that way...

I do, however, find your opinion quite interesting.
Please don't take offense.

__________________
- Veronica Lodge -


Yes, that IS what I said.

Comus

Haha what?

I never percieved what you were saying to be in any way offensive to me, I'm what you call a "troll" I will relentlessly make my point despite any evidence otherwise. And I will also never change my opinion.

And to be entirely blunt, your opinion isn't valid because it doesn't conform with mine.

__________________
last.fm

Veronica Lodge

So, I'm curious then, why are you so smitten with the Stones?
Or, rather, disgusted with the Beatles?

__________________
- Veronica Lodge -


Yes, that IS what I said.

Comus

I don't much care for the stones, like a few of their tunes, same goes for the beatles. But what I hate are the constant fanboys/girls calling them the greatest band ever, either of them. The stones are better because they have a few actually quite decent albums all the way through.

I'm here as a balance, for every fan that loves the beatles with an adoration that should only be reserved for a god, or me. I will hate just as much, just so people get to see both sides, it's an ugly thing to do. Many mean well, but at the end of the day if your favourite band is either the beatles or the stones, there is something severly wrong with your musical progression.

__________________
last.fm

Veronica Lodge

Oddly, I would actually agree with that.

The Beatles are certainly NOT my favourite band. (I just honestly don't believe there is any comparison between the two.)

I generally find that most people who claim the Beatles are their "favourite" band, actually hasn't taken anytime into learning about the band, and why they did the things the did.

__________________
- Veronica Lodge -


Yes, that IS what I said.