re. Beatles/Stones

[Ian Livingston]

No, John, these two sentences:

Also, there are no hard
lines of division, only shifts of emphasis between the two.  The
Stones could open a lovely and engaging intellectual vista, and the
Beatles could move crowds to a good romp.

It so happens that I do prefer to listen to the Beatles, when I choose
between the two, but I think both had some excellent stuff and some
that doesn't hold up as well.  It is rare, though, when I will pull
out anything from either band these days.  They were young and
emotional and fun for that.  But I'm sure you must be right, the
Beatles must have been a far superior band with a far better approach
to music and poetry.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Carvill John<johncarvill at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder, then, do you also disagree strongly the two sentences
>> following the comment you isolated above?
>
>
>
> These 2 sentences:
>
> "Both are delightful experiences on different levels and preference comes
> down to what you most like to have tickled.  Also, there are no hard
> lines of division, only shifts of emphasis between the two."
>
>
> Well, yes, I do disagree with those statements. Very much so. Preference does
> play a part, but - imho - the Beatles were far far superior to the Stones. Which
> therefore does, for me, represent a hard line of division.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get free photo software from Windows Live
> http://www.windowslive.com/online/photos?ocid=PID23393::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:SI_PH_software:082009