The Kinks - better than the Rolling Stones

[friscofrankie]

Fuck me. The kinks had a few good tunes. Not that many, mostly POP pap. The stones were a first rate Bar band. The kinks tried to be more, but failed. I enjoyed a few of their ditties. but hardly edgy or even rock 'n roll.

Kinks: 2 (maybe 3)
Stones: Who knows how many? dozens. you ever listen to little red rooster? love in vain? ruby tuesday? Sympathy for the devil? Brown Sugar?

The kinks had a few good tunes; for the most part, they basically sucked. They tried to copy the weirdness of the Beatles and they tanked. The beatles sucked anyway. Fuckin Stones rocked, good ol rhythm & blues. Bands like the kinks tried to be "Trippy" without understanding what "trippy" really was. The kinks were posers, they happened on a couple of decent hits anyway.

The Kinks, a second rate band trying to be the second coming of The Beatles, a band not worth the time to discuss.
Thing is, even back before your time, when the Kinks hit the market they were touted and recognized as a group to pick up where the Beatles left off. The beatles were "NEW!" Paul McCartney was a fuckin wimp. John lennon an asshole. The Kinks had none of that chemistry and No originality. They were just Whimpy Brit boys tryin to cash n on the so-called "British invasion."

I've got to believe that all your recent Musical threads are nothing but trolls, I have tried to resist. But if your recent trolls leave any indication as to your Musical leanings;

You don't know shit about good music.

[Carnwadrick]

"Ray Davis" thanks CMN you got a younger brain and better memory

[sabang]

^ Ray Davies actually.

[Gambler]

The kinks are good but the stones are far more prolific. The kinks did perhaps one albums worth of good songs. The Stones did several.
In fact it is the albums rather than individual singles/songs which makes the stones so great.

The Kinks had several great albums actually. "Face to Face", "Something Else" and "Village Green Preservation Society" are all rated as 5-star (essential) albums by Rolling Stone magazine.

[Blake7]

Fuck me. The kinks had a few good tunes. Not that many, mostly POP pap. The stones were a first rate Bar band. The kinks tried to be more, but failed. I enjoyed a few of their ditties. but hardly edgy or even rock 'n roll.

Kinks: 2 (maybe 3)
Stones: Who knows how many? dozens. you ever listen to little red rooster? love in vain? ruby tuesday? Sympathy for the devil? Brown Sugar?

The kinks had a few good tunes; for the most part, they basically sucked. They tried to copy the weirdness of the Beatles and they tanked. The beatles sucked anyway. Fuckin Stones rocked, good ol rhythm & blues. Bands like the kinks tried to be "Trippy" without understanding what "trippy" really was. The kinks were posers, they happened on a couple of decent hits anyway.

The Kinks, a second rate band trying to be the second coming of The Beatles, a band not worth the time to discuss.
Thing is, even back before your time, when the Kinks hit the market they were touted and recognized as a group to pick up where the Beatles left off. The beatles were "NEW!" Paul McCartney was a fuckin wimp. John lennon an asshole. The Kinks had none of that chemistry and No originality. They were just Whimpy Brit boys tryin to cash n on the so-called "British invasion."

I've got to believe that all your recent Musical threads are nothing but trolls, I have tried to resist. But if your recent trolls leave any indication as to your Musical leanings;

You don't know shit about good music.

But when the Stones went "trippy" it was pretty crap - "on their Satanic Majexty's Request" for instance.

Looking forward to that Stones "Shine a Light" concert movie which should be out soon.