- 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 10/14/14 at 6:17 pm to Kafka
Posted on 10/14/14 at 6:17 pm to Kafka
quote:
The idea -- and it's not original with me -- is that the Beatles popularized the concept of a band/collective as an end in itself, rather than a temporary way station for an individual performer. Thus the Stones ended up staying together forever, rather than Jagger leaving for a solo career as soon as his contract ran out, as happened with numerous big band figures like Sinatra, Buddy Rich, Harry James, etc...
This is the reason (an example, at least) for the proliferation of "Are Beatles Overrated' threads. Because they are.
1
Posted on 10/15/14 at 8:52 am to kidbourbon
quote:
This is the reason (an example, at least) for the proliferation of "Are Beatles Overrated' threads
Well, it's also the fact the Beatles are considered by consensus to be the greatest band of all time. That means, by definition, they can't be underrated. there's nowhere higher for them to be placed in the pantheon. If you do not agree they are the greatest band ever, which let's face it, is pretty likely, it means you think they are overrated. Also, no one has ever gone broke trying to topple idols. It's a rite of passage.
I still say the Stones are better, and now I need to read that book, but also, the two bands were doing something a little different. They weren't exactly direct competitors.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News