A bit nerdy, but the correct conclusion:

[www.economist.com]

"Beatles or Stones"

What a stupid false choice! Fortunately a man gives us the true answer in the comments: Elvis.

Anyway, I am listening to Strawberry Fields Forever right now and what a song!

I have the same response I do everytime this gets brought up:

"The Beatles were better, more innovative musicians, while the Stones are the band I'll always prefer to put on." They're more straight ahead rock and thats just usually what I want to hear more. To me, I get in Beatles modes, but the Stones can be played at any time.

Having said that, when you're deep in a Beatles kick, boy there's nothing like that. Truly a one of a kind band and what they did for music can't and isn't stressed enough.

The Economist author knows the answer is the The Beatles, as does most everyone, they simply put the stones so they could stir up controversy and get more readers.

The Rutles.

The beagles broke up before I ever had a chance to know
them, they are bunch of quitters, so obviously THE STONES!!

Why compare, Stones are far better unless you're tastes are simple and you like common radio pop songs then you will prefer the beatles….the masses prefer the beatles because the masses like pop...

Without George Harrison there would be no Elliott Smith...

Magical Mystery Tour = Almost perfect
Revolver = only 1 or 2 weak songs
White Album = some songs are terrible, but the best songs are stunning

and so on...

(Early and) late Beatles are not that great...

I am glad they broke up...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-09 18:16 by ChelseaGirls.

Quote
longlongwinter
Why compare, Stones are far better unless you're tastes are simple and you like common radio pop songs then you will prefer the beatles….the masses prefer the beatles because the masses like pop...

I know that you are trolling but since some people think exactly like this:

I'd rather listen to

Afternoon Tea by The Kinks
Changes by David Bowie
Eleanor Rigby by The Beatles

my whole life than listen to ANY obscure post-rock band more than ten minutes.
I don't mind if I am branded a member of the "masses" since that is the truth, I am not a member of some kind of elite.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-09 16:56 by ChelseaGirls.

Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I can't understand all that numbers mumbo jumbo. I skimmed it and went right to the conclusion.

Quote
latebloomer
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I can't understand all that numbers mumbo jumbo. I skimmed it and went right to the conclusion.

I hope you`re grinding your own beans.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
latebloomer
Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I can't understand all that numbers mumbo jumbo. I skimmed it and went right to the conclusion.

I hope you`re grinding your own beans.

Lol, no treacles, I don't have the patience for that...or to try to figure out The Economist article. That's why I teach English and not Math.

Its OK to have a favorite. I like the Stones more than the Beatles. That felt good.