Stones or Beatles?

[Philadisney]

beatles! i was named after one of their songs.

 

[dwheatl]

I have to vote for the Beatles as most meaningful music in my life, but for the Who fans, I blush just thinking about Roger Daltrey. I was 13 when I saw the movie Tommy, and I was totally smitten. Ooh, that man can scream! I have never seen the Who in person out of respect for my DH and our marriage vows, but even if I had, it would have been decades after the Altamonte tragedy. The last concert I enjoyed was David Bowie with my 17 y.o. DS. Now, Bowie's voice is like Irish Cream; sweet and smooth with a fire that sneaks up on you.

 

[N.Bailey]

I have to go with Aerosmith!!!

Between the two choices though, the Beatles win hands down for me.

 

[DawnCt1]

After the Beatles evolved away from their early music I preferred the Stones (as a teen that is). I liked their first LP (can't remember the name of it now)

 

[Tiziminchac]

The Beatles! And Paul, I think he was the real brains behind the outfit. The Who and Stones are both very good bands. But I'd prefer Zeppelin over either. When it comes right down to it, I guess it all depends on my mood.

 

[Planogirl]

The Beatles weren't a part of my generation either but I think that much of their music has a timeless quality and will withstand the test of time. I don't think that the same can be said for many other bands. The Stones? I'm not sure...

 

[Swimnoid]

Beatles for me but definitely Stones for DH.

Paul over John!

 

[azgal81]

Bon jovi for me nothing else compares! Can I pick them?? None of the other choices are appealing to me! Who wants to listen to the beatles or the stones when you can listen to bon jovi!

 

[ilovepcot]

Neither! Let's talk JAZZ!!!!

 

[GoofyDad869]

Seems an odd question for an interview to me. How old are your usual applicants? I mean I'm 41 and I don't really think of either of those as "my generation". Now, if you want to ask about Journey and Styx, REO and Foreigner, Cheap Trick and Eagles, then I can have an intelligent conversation. Ahh, I miss the 80's.

It IS intended to be an odd interview question. Architectural firm interviews tend to be really ego-centric and stodgy in our collective experience, and can be intimidating for a young interviewee. Interviews rarely indicate what the work environment is like (I don't think I'm unfairly out-ing architectural firms in this respect, I think you could say that for just about any workplace). Which is a shame. We're trying to bend the mold a bit, but not break it, because firm respect is a huge thing. You don't want to be viewed as an "Animal House" firm, especially among potential clients.

It's usually thrown in at the very beginning if the interviewee seems really tense or unusually nervous. It usually lightens people up, because there's really not a bad answer to the question. It also gives them an idea of what our typical day's discussions are like - yesterday we were arguing over whether Green Day is *really* a punk band...

If the interview has gone well (and one of us hasn't asked it yet), someone will put on a mock-serious expression and say something like "This next question will be a deal breaker, but no pressure, M'kay?" It ends the interview on a very light note. Plus, they remember us in a good light in any case, especially compared to the stuffed suits they experienced in other interviews.

Back to the point:
Neither band is really generational-oriented either. After saying that, I'm too young to have experienced either band in their "prime". I used to "borrow" mom & dad's Beatles red & blue Greatest Hits compilations on LPs (33 1/3 - remember that?) over and over. I vaguely remember Paul McCartney & Wings. I remember John Lennon's album "Double Fantasy" right before he died from my early teens. I clearly remember the crappy duets both Paul & Mick foisted upon us (Paul & Michael Jackson "Say Say Say" and Mick & David Bowie "Dancing in the Streets") - but I bought both singles so I really can't complain. I loved George Harrison's album in the late '80s. I'm not even gonna mention what Ringo's been up to...

Both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones are timeless, and irreplaceable in my opinion. A Beatles reunion is a physical/metaphysical impossibility now. I'm impressed with the Rolling Stones stamina - and they still have their original lineup. Doesn't get much better than that.

 

[Deb in IA]

I'm impressed with the Rolling Stones stamina - and they still have their original lineup. Doesn't get much better than that.

Not exactly.

Brian Jones is long dead, and Bill Wyman left the band in 1993.
But Charlie, Keith and Mick are still going strong, despite Charlie's scare with throat cancer last year.

 

[GoofyDad869]

Not exactly.

Brian Jones is long dead, and Bill Wyman left the band in 1993.
But Charlie, Keith and Mick are still going strong, despite Charlie's scare with throat cancer last year.

D'oh

I remember Brian Jones died in 1969, but I wasn't aware of Bill Wyman not being a part of the Stones anymore. Shows how much I know.

I guess what I meant to say (nevermind how clumsy it ended up displayed on screen) was that they're not like other bands of yore (Beach Boys and their various spin-off bands spring to mind), where few of the founding members are still part of the band.

 

[Deb in IA]

No problem, goofydad! I only know this trivia because I am married to the ultimate Stones fan . . .

I agree with your assessment that the core of the Rolling Stones has remained, for the most part, intact.

In addition to the ones I mentioned, I would also add Mick Taylor, who was not an original member of the band, but was added to the Stones after Brian Jones was kicked out in 1969, but only stayed until 1975, to be replaced by Ronnie Wood.

 

[imsorry]

Between the two, I would have to say Beatles!!!

 

[phisigprincess]

I love the Beatles!! And definately Paul for my favorite.

 

[Mugg Mann]

post deleted to bring to a separate thread...

 

[SwedishMeatball]

The Eagles

 

[Galahad]

I just read a fascinating story. I've ready dozens of books about the Beatles and such and this is the first time I'd ready this story.

In late 1963, as the Beatles were really taking off in the U.K., George Harrison was one of several judges of a talent competition in Liverpool. Another judge, sitting next to him was a executive from Decca Records whose last name was Rowe (can't remember the first name). After commiserating and joking together about what a dumb move Decca made by passing on signing the Beatles, Rowe asked George who the best up-and-coming bands were. Apparently George thought a moment and said "we just saw a GREAT band down in London last month called the Rolling Stones. They're almost as good as <some Liverpool band I've not heard of and obviously didn't make it>". Rowe apparently left the talent show shortly after that conversation and went straight to London to find the Stones.

The story went on to say that the Stones and the Beatles were fast friends from the first time the Beatles went to a club to see them.

As a sort of Yin and Yang of British rock, perhaps there really couldn't have been the one without the other.