Re: The Most Diverse Sounding Rock Bands
posted at 1/25/2012 10:59 AM EST
In Response to Re: The Most Diverse Sounding Rock Bands
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: The Most Diverse Sounding Rock Bands : Stones, 1963-1978 I mean. Come on. Every single song in Beggar's Banquet was completely different. I mean they've got pop-rock, blues rock, straight up rock, folk/folk rock, countryish rock, and even a sort of blues/folk/rock song that turns into pop/soul with rock overtones and makes it work. And that's one album. Let alone their progression through all forms of awesomeness then known to rock and then some, within that period. The only thing they missed was writing Helter Skelter. And of course, there are further completely different songs in equally completely different albums in Let It Bleed, Exile on Main Street, It's Only Rock & Roll, Exile on Main Street. And don't they even hit up disco in Black & Blue? OR was it Emotional Rescue? The only thing they didn't do was death metal. Still, for the sake of honest, I have to give The Beatles an extremely close second. I mean. Sexie Sadie, Buffalo Bill, Helter Skelter, Yer Blues, and a nonsense song about British desserts in one album? Then again, to the chagrin of some, I regard Rev. No. 9 as a torrid musical d*uce. I'm willing to chalk it up to taste and call it a draw.
Posted by WhatDoYouWantNow[/QUOTE]
whoaaa, whoa, whoa, whoa. the white album was hardly the start of the diversity. it really started with revolver (some would even say rubber soul)...a sitar and backwards tape loops on the same album...both the first time ever? eleanor rigby, the first beatles song without a guitar...got to get you into my life in the motown vein...thats starting off with a bang, i'd say.
i love the stones. LOVE them. they're a blues/rock band. all styles that they play, and those that you mentioned, are based off that. they're a blues rock band, and they're the first people to say that. not so whatsoever with the beatles. all over the map. now, this may be attributed to the fact that revolver was released on their last tour, and they subsequently became recording artists rather than performing musicians. it allows for a lot more creativity and attention to detail.
not to mention that you mentioned a specific 15 year period, whereas the beatles' experimentation really only dates from '66-'70, and sort of tapered off at the end when they were collapsing. you could do a song by song analysis if you really wanted to see how truly diverse their catalogue became, and the different influences they were including.
the stones are 2nd in my book, and most people's books i would comfortably say. but thats based on diversity only, we are all free to be partial to the stones more if we wish.