Thursday, September 21, 2006

Rolling Stones: Early 60's

I found this article on the early years of the Rolling Stones. It is a fantastic read if you're into the band or want to know more about them. There is also an interesting arguement of who was better, the Beatles or the Rolling Stones.

3 Comments:

Blogger George Walks said...

You should check out the Rolling Stones articles by Lester Bangs in either of the collected works books that are out. A great snap shot. Especially amusing are the articles from the late seventies/early eighties asking are the Stones past it?!

September 25, 2006 2:37 PM  
Blogger Paul Fuzz said...

I'll second the Lester Bangs reccomendation.

Beatles vs Stones, huh? It's a weird one, 'cos I guess 'on paper' der Stones would make more sense as my preference; they could do funk, soul & RnB way better than der Fabs, and as a rule those are the things I value most highly. The Stones took those things and became the best at them. The Beatles took those things and built entirely new things from them...plus there is a variety and breadth of genre hopping in The Beatles canon that makes them pretty hard ro beat. The Stones are purists, The Beatles were pluralists. I've gotta go with The Beatles, but if someone wants to stick on 'Ventilator Blues' for five minutes I may well change my mind.

September 25, 2006 8:27 PM  
Blogger Ash said...

The Beatles made more consistently great album than the Rolling Stones in my opinion. With the Stones there is a lot of filler.

September 26, 2006 3:30 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home