A Relatively Lazy Post About The Rolling Stones

I call this a lazy post because I wrote most of it before posting it to this here blog-a-roo. It all started when I did a drive-by past fellow On Time!er The Far North End, and found him having an existential dilemma regarding one of my favorite bands, the Rolling Stones. Besides asking for Stones album recommendations, FNE's question was: why does anyone consider the Stones to be equals to, if not better than, the Beatles? The rest of tonight's post is my reply to that question, spiced up with some stolen pictures. Enjoy!

* * *

For me, the answer to “Beatles or Stones?” will always be “Stones.” Almost exclusively because of the song “Sympathy for the Devil.” But I don’t see the Stones as being more innovative or influential as the Beatles. More talented? I’d call that a draw. Ultimately, I think it’s kind of like, whether a person believes in [INSERT PREFERRED CREATOR NAME HERE] or [INSERT PREFERRED CREATOR-OPPONENT NAME HERE], chances are they still believe that the creator is more powerful and influential than (and may have in fact created) the opponent.

I didn't live through the '60s, so I can't speak for the hippies, but that's how I've always viewed their rivalry: the Beatles were yang, and the Stones were yin. People just kind of go with whatever vibe they like the most. And yes, the Beatles were probably a more groundbreaking group than the Stones... but you’d be hard-pressed to prove they were cooler.

* * *

Two other things I just now thought to add -- first, the Stones gain a lot of props due to the fact the core members have been working together for 40-some-odd years, whereas the Beatles only lasted about a decade.

On a more superficial level, the Beatles couldn't boast anyone as awesome as Keith Richards, and the Stones weren't hampered by anyone as toolish as Paul McCartney (though arguments could be made in Mick Jagger's favor on that point). Discuss.