re. Beatles/Stones

[Ian Livingston]

Listen, before this misunderstanding proceeds any further, John, I
apologize if anything I have written came across as pugnacious in any
way.  That is not my intent.  Perhaps I am not as clear this morning
as I would like to be and should bag trying to reach understandings
until I am more with it.

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Ian Livingston<igrlivingston at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>