Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

elithemoonwalker t1_ixu5nb8 wrote

Reply to comment by HarryBalsonia69 in The Beatles Made The Best Music Ever - Disagree and Make Me Laugh by HarryBalsonia69

The Monkees was just be throwing an example out there, maybe someone like The Who are a better example (Being one of the most innovative bands of all time basically creating genres like Metal and Power Pop amongst many other things, with the Beatles taking TONS of inspiration from those guys).

The Rolling Stones spent 90% of their money on addictions and still are extremely influential. I think it’s important to separate having money and having funding. The Beatles - relatively addictionless for a rock band - had a lot of funding to pump into their music. The Stones - Quite heavy on the addiction front - had little funding to pump into their music yet still churned out some IMPECCABLE stuff.

You seem to have a dismissive and relatively aggressive tone so in case this puts your mind to ease: I’m not Anti-Beatles. Help! Is one of my favourite albums of all time (and my favourite Beatles record) but I think because they’re music was SO polished, due to a huge amount of funding, the common consensus is they’re the best songs known to man when realistically there’s much better songs out there

1

HarryBalsonia69 OP t1_ixu70v0 wrote

The Kinks and The Who really were an influence. What about the addiction thing ? I only thought that was some kind of a rumor . So they had more pumping into their veins than pumping into their musiic ? Did the Stones really spend that much on it ? I know Brian really had issues with it and Brian sure was taking them places in the sixties . The sixties was obviously their best of their best in their makings. Did all that happen after or what

1

elithemoonwalker t1_ixuf73p wrote

Every member of the stones was either on Heroin, Cocaine, hard liquor or all of the above. It’s only now they’ve been clean for the past decade. Whilst each of them spent quite a lot of their personal funds on drugs the main issue is that no one would give them large sums of money to make a movie or anything because they thought they’d be branded as “the one that work with those druggies”. In the Beatles case there was less talk about johns heroin habit and the rest of them weren’t addicted to anything but cigarettes so it was more acceptable to give them money. I’m not say the stones were always penniless but they weren’t pop superstars like the Beatles

1