Posted by Connection (172.146.75.249) on January 21, 2001 at 05:20:26:
In Reply to: great band vs. great rock and roll band posted by bob on January 20, 2001 at 22:57:21:
: On the subject of greatest band, I'd like to make what might be an unpopular point, but I think it's basically accurate. If an alien came to me and said, what is rock and roll?, I'd pull out the stones (JJF or HTW). But, if the question is, what is the greatest band, I'd say the Beatles. Think about it. If John existed by himself, he'd still have been a god as a solo artist. Same with Paul. George would not have been as big, but way above average. Ringo, well, who knows? That's really not true of too many other bands, Stones included. Mick would not have been what he is without Keith's riffs and writing. Keith couldn't have become as popular without Jagger up front. Charlie, Bill, Brian, Mick T, and Ronnie were just along for the ride. The Beatles have the greatest collection of poets, vocalists, and musicians ever assembled and they'll always be the greatest "pop" band. The Stones get the crown for pure blues based, raw rock and roll. None of the others are nearly as significant.
Most of what you've just written is speculative rubbish. The Beatles needed each other, and Gorge Martin, to bounce ideas off. Lennon and McCartney spurred each other on, and kept each others ego in check.
After the group split up - the solo work was pretty variable, wasnt it?
"Charlie, Bill, Brian, Mick T and Ronnie were just along for the ride"? Such ignorance doesnt deserve a response.
"None of the others are nearly as significant".
The Byrds, Beach Boys, Doors, Kinks and Phil Spector beg to differ.