This time, in the comments to this story, and talk about taking Beatles worship to a whole new level...
Don't tell me that you just compared an Incredible Fab Four group like the Beatles to a group of dress-wearing, makup-wearing, devil worshipping group like the Rolling Stones!! The Stones had a few good hits, but not anything compared to the likes of the four lads from Liverpool. The Beatles had more talent in their pinky than all of the Stones put together !!!!
I guess I must have missed something along the way in my study of the history of rock and roll, because nowhere have I seen anything about the Stones dressing in drag and worshipping the devil. At any rate, though, it really tells you where the commenter's coming from. I'd guess he (or she) probably prefers everything that came before about 1965 or so, or whenever it was that rock started taking on more of the edge that much of the Rolling Stones' music had. Now that I think about it I think that's perhaps the biggest reason I prefer the Rolling Stones, is that their style of rock was harder than that of the Beatles. I've always preferred the harder rock of the bands that came later, as you might have noticed by a lot of the songs I am blogging about here. And I'd really hate to think the above comment was representative of the typical Beatles fan's mentality, because even though I can't stand the music of the Beatles I can at least respect their talent and not resort to ad hominem slurs.
I might make an exception for John
|