- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Rolling Stones or Beatles?
Posted on 10/13/14 at 1:12 pm to kidbourbon
Posted on 10/13/14 at 1:12 pm to kidbourbon
quote:I don't understand your reactionquote:Jesus tap-dancing Christ
Beatles - far more influential. The Beatles are the template for all rock bands that followed.
What in the statement about influence is inaccurate?
And The Beatles may not have invented the lead-rhythm-bass-drums rock band template (Buddy Holly/Crickets) but they certainly popularized it. At the same time they solidified the entire band concept (as opposed to support for a star) in rock and roll.
1
Posted on 10/13/14 at 3:41 pm to Kafka
quote:
What in the statement about influence is inaccurate?
All of it.
They didn't serve as a template going forward. If we're gonna try to shove a band into the category of template for bands that followed, then Led Zep works much much better. Way more bands that followed Led Zep sounded like Led Zep, and probably not coincidentally.
And perhaps I'm misreading what you wrote, but did you just give The Beatles credit for popularizing "a band". I'm pretty sure you did, but surely I'm misreading what you wrote. Please pretty please tell me you aren't arguing that but for The Beatles, there would have been no bands.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News