Reply to The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "The Beatles or the Rolling Stones? Discuss. I say the Stones"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Hallucinogenic drugs had a profound impact on their music....that's all I'm saying.   In that sense, they did break free of what they were up until that point.  [/quote]

Haha ok — but what they were before was not a boy band. It was a pop/rock/folk (on some songs) group. [/quote]

still disagree

"boy band gone bad boy!"

They entered clean cut & sober and exited hairy & sometimes, trippy. [/quote]

You need to read more about their Hamburg period. It was not clean cut and sober. They were using uppers regularly and played in a very seedy district of Hamburg. [/quote]

+10000[/quote]

I'm the OP who mentioned Dylan and marijuana and hallucinogenic drugs, etc.  I never said they were a boy band.  I did not post "boy band gone bad boy".  But as along as we're on the subject,  whether or not they were "clean and sober" during their "Hamburg period" is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.  Taking uppers to play five sets a night, and then consuming alcohol to come down was what most kids in rock bands were doing then. The psychedelic drugs they began taking around 1966 (when they stopped touring) profoundly changed the direction of their music.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics