08-01-2014, 02:03 PM
24
Re: The Stones ....
Originally Posted by Bruce
->
The Beatles were original whereas the Stones, certainly in their early days, derivative. It took the Beatles for Jagger and Richards to realise they could even write their own songs something Lennon and Macartney had been doing from their formation.
For example Their Satanic Majesty Requests was the Stones trying to catch up with the Beatles after Sgt Pepper (and a very poor attempt at it too). The best of the Stones was yet to come.
Whether you like the music or not the Beatles were streets ahead of the Stones in originality but the Stones were a great performing band. The Beatles were the 60s, the Sixties ended when the Beatles broke up (1972?)
03-03-2014, 10:36 AM
27
Re: The Stones ....
Never liked the Beatles, Stones or indeed any other 'pop' group, have never been to a 'pop' concert or festival either in or outdoors and have intention of attending one even if offerred £1million to do so. 'Pop' music does nothing for me - I much prefer opera and classical music which actually carries a memorable melody.03-03-2014, 12:32 PM
28
Re: The Stones ....
Each to his/her own Joe, but I can't help feel that you are missing out by ignoring a whole, important branch of culture. I love classical music, opera and (some) jazz, but I also love a lot of rock, pop and folk music. There is a lot of "dross" in popular music, but in the same way, the vast majority of classical music is rubbish - the difference being that being that much older, only the better classical music has survived - the rubbish is long forgotten.
|
|
