Why?

1 hour ago, mathman said:
So sorry for you.

Hopefully you fully enjoy the bands you do like.


 
Click to expand...
Bands I do like:

Blue Cheer, CCR, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Styx, Journey, Foreigner, Kansas, Queen, Heart, REO, Triumph, Alice in Chains, Ratt, Dokken, Night Ranger, Loudness, Giant, Climax Blues Band, the old Jackson 5, Jeff Beck's Blow by Blow, Van Halen, Wishbone Ash, Jake E. Lee's Ozzy, Autograph, Tal Farlow, Chet Atkins, After the Fire, some Aerosmith, SRV, Bad Company (both original and Brian Howe versions), Average White Band, Atlanta Rhythm Section, .38 Special, the first 3 Metallica albums, early Asia, A good bunch of Frank Zappa, Billy Squier, some Strat Cats, early Bryan Adams, Chicago, early Def Leppard, Europe, Extreme, Foo Fighters, Head East, Huey Lewis & the News, John Waite, Winger, a good bunch of Ted Nugent, Tommy Shaw (solo), Damn Yankees, Kiss (though mostly just Destroyer), most of the Moody Blues, Rich Mullins, Nazareth, the Offspring, mid-80s Peter Frampton, TNT, the Scorpions, a good amount of Rick Springfield, the Spin Doctors, almost all Steely Dan, Sugarloaf, Sammy Hagar (pre-Van Halen), Tesla, a bunch of Yes, ZZ Top, and Allanah Myles first album. Of these groups I do like, I often like the non-hits better than the hits (like for Bryan Adams and Rick Springfield)

Plus a butt load of Chinese rock/pop music.

And yes, I enjoy the crap out of all these.

I guess I just like going my own direction?

If I had to find some common elements, I'd say that for the most part, I don't like those bands because the vocalists turn me off, or they are less guitar-riff-oriented than I prefer.  

 
Well, this is interesting. 

I like the Beatles more than Sabbath I think, but I find the idea of not being able to enjoy an album like Sabotage or Sabbath Bloody Sabbath far more depressing than not liking the Beatles.  I think.

I'll have to think on this a bit.   

 

 
Wow. Great topic guys. I was a music agnostic most of my life.  My Dad was a hardcore '50s music guy. Mom liked disco and folk. As a result I didn't have any interest in music. When I left home to go to college I owned three albums. The sound track to Star Wars, Journey Escape and Judas Priest British Steel. Music wasn't really part of my life. That changed when a friend started showing me how to play guitar. My roommate was a dead head and big lover of Hendrix. It was something akin to a rebirth. I confess to not "getting" the Beatles. Great music but why the hysteria? I like the rawness of the Stones, at least the early stuff. Emotional Rescue emotionally scarred me. Haven't much liked their stuff after that point. We go through our own journey to get where we're going and sharing those experiences is sorta cool.

 
Steve Haynie said:
Listening to The Beatles back when I was a kid was the greatest thing.  Now when I compare them with The Rolling Stones it becomes more clear why so many of the 70's bands named the Stones as an influence more often than The Beatles. 
Click to expand...
I echo this sentiment. The Beatles stuff just hasn't aged well for me. The Stones' '70s output is timeless.

Oh, and....

why.jpg


 
Steve Haynie said:
 Now when I compare them with The Rolling Stones it becomes more clear why so many of the 70's bands named the Stones as an influence more often than The Beatles. 
Click to expand...
I recall the Stones being a significant influence on American '70s rock bands, but anecdotally, I'd say the Beatles were equally/more popular as an influence on British bands from the '70s as well as jangle pop bands from the late '70s and early '80s. There is simply no denying the huge influence that the lads from Liverpool had on popular music, just as the Stones' imprint is indelible on '70s and '80s AOR. Hell, even Ozzy claimed the Beatles as one of his strongest influences, although I'm not sure I hear it in his music outside of "So Tired" and "Coming Home". 

ETA: There really are two very different eras of Beatles music (just as there was for the Beach Boys)--the earlier bubble gum pop stuff and the later, more complex stuff. The Stones always maintained a diversity to their music that I found appealing. Never exclusively syrupy or overly serious. Each album seems to have a good mixture of moods and styles.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nathan of Brainfertilizer Fame said:
Bands I do like:

Blue Cheer, CCR, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Styx, Journey, Foreigner, Kansas, Queen, Heart, REO, Triumph, Alice in Chains, Ratt, Dokken, Night Ranger, Loudness, Giant, Climax Blues Band, the old Jackson 5, Jeff Beck's Blow by Blow, Van Halen, Wishbone Ash, Jake E. Lee's Ozzy, Autograph, Tal Farlow, Chet Atkins, After the Fire, some Aerosmith, SRV, Bad Company (both original and Brian Howe versions), Average White Band, Atlanta Rhythm Section, .38 Special, the first 3 Metallica albums, early Asia, A good bunch of Frank Zappa, Billy Squier, some Strat Cats, early Bryan Adams, Chicago, early Def Leppard, Europe, Extreme, Foo Fighters, Head East, Huey Lewis & the News, John Waite, Winger, a good bunch of Ted Nugent, Tommy Shaw (solo), Damn Yankees, Kiss (though mostly just Destroyer), most of the Moody Blues, Rich Mullins, Nazareth, the Offspring, mid-80s Peter Frampton, TNT, the Scorpions, a good amount of Rick Springfield, the Spin Doctors, almost all Steely Dan, Sugarloaf, Sammy Hagar (pre-Van Halen), Tesla, a bunch of Yes, ZZ Top, and Allanah Myles first album. Of these groups I do like, I often like the non-hits better than the hits (like for Bryan Adams and Rick Springfield)

Plus a butt load of Chinese rock/pop music.

And yes, I enjoy the crap out of all these.

I guess I just like going my own direction?

If I had to find some common elements, I'd say that for the most part, I don't like those bands because the vocalists turn me off, or they are less guitar-riff-oriented than I prefer.  
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to be critical.  Seriously,  some of the bands you listed were mind changing in my life.  Of course your second list does include some of the biggest names in rock n roll and big favorites of mine also.  So there's that.   But 3 or 4 in your don't like list were landmarks in the road of my rock n roll history.

edited to add,

I'm not trolling.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting, I have never been into the Stones either. Although, I had bought Emotional Resque at the time, I had been dissapointed by the album. It is kind of equal to Deep Purple. The most liked Purple album to me is the Concerto For Group And Orchestra. Well, I have Live In Japan, but don't listen to it much really. Beatles are not my time really. However, I like the later stuff, white album etc. Quite consequtively, ELO still is a favorite of mine.

Rather than 50 years of Stones, I'd rather celebrate 50 years of Golden Earring.

 
mathman said:
I didn't mean to be critical.  Seriously,  some of the bands you listed were mind changing in my life.  Of course your second list does include some of the biggest names in rock n roll and big favorites of mine also.  So there's that.   But 3 or 4 in your don't like list were landmarks in the road of my rock n roll history.

edited to add,

I'm not trolling.
Click to expand...
It's all good. I was trying to trigger an opportunity to list the bands I like. 

I'm also morphing into an Internet chew toy. You should see me on twitter.

 
gorch said:
Rather than 50 years of Stones, I'd rather celebrate 50 years of Golden Earring.
Click to expand...
Golden Earring has some great music that has evolved through different eras.  If they had been as big and influential as the Stones they might be considered overrated. 

I own more Golden Earring albums than Rolling Stones albums. 

 
gorch said:
Quite consequtively, ELO still is a favorite of mine.

Rather than 50 years of Stones, I'd rather celebrate 50 years of Golden Earring.
Click to expand...


Steve Haynie said:
Golden Earring has some great music that has evolved through different eras.  If they had been as big and influential as the Stones they might be considered overrated. 

I own more Golden Earring albums than Rolling Stones albums. 
Click to expand...
The dying continues.

 
RobB said:
Because "Classic Rock Radio" has been playing them non-stop for 40+ years, THAT'S why.

I get sick of them to the point of hatred, take a break for a while, and go back and happily revisit their catalog. They have a vibe that few bands could match. The Faces come pretty close...
Click to expand...
I'm another one who grew up with the Beach Boys, Beatles, Stones, and the British Invasion.

I didn't buy a Beatles album until Sgt. Pepper's came out, but the airplay was frequent enough I was satisfied. I never owned a Stones album until Santellavision sent me some when he was phasing out his vinyl playback equipment and collection. But I didn't get around to playing the Stones albums until a couple weeks ago.

Here's what I concluded: the Stones have a great rhythm section, great guitar riffs, lots of energy, etc. When I was playing their music it energized me and hearing it over my high-rez rig increased my appreciation for their artistry and sense of ensemble. 

However, I found the Stones' formula is a 2-edged sword. The same hooks that make their songs engaging easily turn into very persistent earworms that tortured me when I was trying to fall asleep at night.

 
Add me to the list of those who never cared for the Stones. Or (blasphemies ahead, I know!) Grateful Dead, Bruce Springsteen, The Doors, Eric Clapton, The Who, CSNY, Eagles, any of the "Southern" bands (Skynyrd, Allman Bros, Marshall Tucker, ZZ Top...), or metal (AC/DC, Metallica, Judas Priest...).

Always gravitated more towards prog rock, jazz & classical influenced stuff, "weird" stuff, etc. I think in my "looking for a Hamer" thread I mentioned some of the more popular prog bands I like but here are some of the more esoteric ones I've also enjoyed : Happy the Man, Jade Warrior, Greenslade, Eloy, Tangerine Dream, Hawkwind, Horslips, PFM, Mahavishnu Orch, Jukka Tollonen, Shadowfax, Oregon, Lucifer's Friend, etc.

Everybody has their own tastes, and what a boring enterprise music would be if there was no variety. What I especially like about music is one can create something that blends a number of interests, influences, or approaches and the result can be interesting and unique, and satisfies the creative urge.

 
Just realized that my band had--count 'em--four Stones songs in our set list at any one time in the early '90s:  Sympathy for the Devil, Paint It Black, Jumping Jack Flash, and Honky Tonk Women. I rather enjoyed Paint it Black and grew to love playing Sympathy, with its accompanying "Hoo-hoo" background vocals and sloppy, uncoordinated guitar solo. Frankly, I could live the rest of my days never hearing or playing the other two songs and die a happy man. They're good songs, but sheesh, talk about being made, played, and Chik-Fil-A'ed....those songs have been driven into the ground via Classic Rock radio.

 
Rolling Stones bit of a love/not love thing for me. Saw them in the 70's at Rich Stadium in Buffalo. Actually took a job selling snow cones just so I could see them!

Sound quality then was not what it is now, but they really didn't sound that great. Mick is a great frontman but he sings off key a lot! Re-visited the whole live thaing when they had their Big big screen concert movie, thought they sounded better. It seemed to me that after awhile they were following Beatles trends. Pain it Black, using the sitar or something that sounded like it. Her Majesty Satanic request was a Sgt. Peppers influenced album.

But then there's Start me Up, You Cant Always Get what you Want, Sympathy For the Devil and many more that are just Great!

ArnieZ

 
I do actually like "Paint it Black" and the entire album "Moving Pictures" by Rush.

I'm sure if I dug deeply into some bands' catalogs, I'd probably find more that I liked.  Although I dug deeply into Blue Oyster Cult and was rather unimpressed, and dug into Jethro Tull's and was repulsed, so there are no guarantees.

 
The proverbial Beatles vs. Stones thing to me boils down to:

I probably like some Stones tunes and much as any Beatles tune.  There are probably a good two or three albums worth of those songs. 

But they aren't on the same album. 

The Beatles, Pink Floyd, and a lot of other classic rock bands have several albums I can listen to cover-to-cover.  Sticky Fingers is as close as the Stones ever got to that for me, and I still can't stand a few songs on that album.  Exile is even worse.  For every one song I really love on that album, there are two that, at best, just make me want to go to sleep.  I get how well it documents everything going on at the time sonically, but a lot of bands have recorded albums strung out.  That isn't particularly special to me, plus, I'm not in the Keef Kult. 

I tend to gravitate toward bands that make entire albums that I can dig into rather than bands that I can depend on to put out a few good tunes each album but then leave you kind of wanting for the rest of it.  As such, the Stones have always been a band with song I think rock mighty hard but overall have never loved as dearly as some others. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Only one I ever bought was Some Girls, back in the day around the time it came out. I like a lot of their stuff but haven't listened to them a ton. Beatles, I've never been a huge fan but can definitely appreciate the talent and innovation. Oddly enough, I've never been able to get into Jeff Beck but I love the Mick Jagger solo album and believe he did most if not all of the guitars on that one. The latest Stones that was posted a few months back also sounded pretty good from the 2-3 songs I've heard.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top