Monday, September 22, 2008

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

So, I'm sure you've all heard the old axiom, you are either a Beatle or a Rolling Stone, and that describes your character, or other some such nonsense. I have always said that I am both, and have refused to choose.

The other day on my way to work I was thinking about this. Since I have a 30-minute commute, I often have time to ponder inconsequential things, and I often do just that. Anyhoo, I decided on that day which one I am.

I am a Rolling Stone.

Here is how I figured out who I was: I asked myself, does either group have at least one song in their canon that I simply could not live without hearing again for as long as I should live. As much as I love the Beatles, John Lennon and Across the Universe, I have to say that the Stones edge them out for me ever so slightly.

While I love "Eleanor Rigby," "Yesterday," "All You Need Is Love," "Day Tripper," "Revolution," "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds" and many more, I could deal with never hearing any of them again if I had to.

However, I could not live with never again hearing "Paint It Black," "Mother's Little Helper," "Under My Thumb," "Ruby Tuesday," "Sympathy for the Devil" and "You Can't Always Get What You Want" (and many more, but these especially).

So, there you have it. I am a Rolling Stone. Feel free to share what you are in the comments :)

3 comments:

FuzzyDave said...

I'd hate to make the choice, but for the sake of argument, I'd have to go with Beatles.

Not so much for quality as quantity.

There are more Beatles songs I like than Rolling Stones.

I'd hate to live in a world without either.

Unknown said...

I thought of the number of songs versus quality, and I had to go with quality.

It was really hard, but yes, I'd rather not have to choose. It was almost as difficult as Sophie's Choice. Minus the concentration camps.

Elly said...

Beatles for me, definitely. I like the range of type of songs, from peppy to rocked-out to weird.