From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:

Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?

A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.

On Fri, 14 May 2021 03:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Norbert K
<norbertkosky69@gmail.com> wrote:

>From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:
>
>Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?
>
>A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.

It is the pathological drive to name "winners and losers" it is a
cultural dysfunction; you see it everywhere. We MUST have winners and
losers. A symptom of a sick society.

They are/were both excellent groups with different styles.

Good that The Beatles broke up when they did; they remain cultural
icons, and those years when they were active are "magical". Good that
the Rolling Stones have kept going decade-after-decade; the, too, are
cultural icons; so much outstanding music!

On 16/05/2021 3:05 am, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 03:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Norbert K
> <norbertkosky69@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:
>>
>> Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?
>>
>> A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.
>
> It is the pathological drive to name "winners and losers" it is a
> cultural dysfunction; you see it everywhere. We MUST have winners and
> losers. A symptom of a sick society.
>
> They are/were both excellent groups with different styles.
>
> Good that The Beatles broke up when they did; they remain cultural
> icons, and those years when they were active are "magical". Good that
> the Rolling Stones have kept going decade-after-decade; the, too, are
> cultural icons; so much outstanding music!
>

Exactly. It is totally subjective, if one feel forced to make a decision
for some bizarre reason rather than just enjoy both for their unique
attributes.

geoff

On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 11:05:57 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2021 03:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Norbert K
> <norbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:
> >
> >Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?
> >
> >A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.
> It is the pathological drive to name "winners and losers" it is a
> cultural dysfunction; you see it everywhere. We MUST have winners and
> losers. A symptom of a sick society.
>
> They are/were both excellent groups with different styles.
>
> Good that The Beatles broke up when they did; they remain cultural
> icons, and those years when they were active are "magical". Good that
> the Rolling Stones have kept going decade-after-decade; the, too, are
> cultural icons; so much outstanding music!

The Stones have been in recycle mode for decades, IMO, but I totally agree with your general point.

A fun qoute for you Norbert:

He (John) and I had a fairly nice friendship going until one time I visited him in New York in the studio, and every time I'd ask him a question, You-Know-Who would answer it. I finally said, "Can we go out in the hall and talk or something?" And John said, "Where I go, Yoko goes." And I said, "Well, it's been great, John - see ya." It was just too frustrating. She was constantly inserting herself, constantly demanding to be seen as an equal. An equal artist, even - and she was standing next to a guy who changed the world. It pissed me off too much. I expect that happened with a lot of people. - David Crosby

On Sunday, May 16, 2021 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-4, Emma Smulders wrote:
> A fun qoute for you Norbert:
>
> He (John) and I had a fairly nice friendship going until one time I visited him in New York in the studio, and every time I'd ask him a question, You-Know-Who would answer it. I finally said, "Can we go out in the hall and talk or something?" And John said, "Where I go, Yoko goes." And I said, "Well, it's been great, John - see ya." It was just too frustrating. She was constantly inserting herself, constantly demanding to be seen as an equal. An equal artist, even - and she was standing next to a guy who changed the world. It pissed me off too much. I expect that happened with a lot of people. - David Crosby

That is a great quote, Emma. I've not encountered it before.

I'll bet you-know-who didn't know (or even care) who Crosby was.

On Sun, 16 May 2021 08:41:26 -0700 (PDT), "RJKe...@yahoo.com"
<RJKellog@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 15, 2021 at 11:05:57 AM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2021 03:38:18 -0700 (PDT), Norbert K
>> <norbert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:
>> >
>> >Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?
>> >
>> >A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.
>> It is the pathological drive to name "winners and losers" it is a
>> cultural dysfunction; you see it everywhere. We MUST have winners and
>> losers. A symptom of a sick society.
>>
>> They are/were both excellent groups with different styles.
>>
>> Good that The Beatles broke up when they did; they remain cultural
>> icons, and those years when they were active are "magical". Good that
>> the Rolling Stones have kept going decade-after-decade; the, too, are
>> cultural icons; so much outstanding music!
>
>The Stones have been in recycle mode for decades, IMO, but I totally agree with your general point.

Nothing wrong with having a favorite group, but to choose which group
was better is catering to an inferior mentality and an exercise in
futility.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:38:19 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:
>
> Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?
>
> A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.

"The Stones did have a fairly wide range" of stuff they could do? You've got to be kidding me. Unless he's talking about the Brian Jones era.

Crosby always had a bug up his ass about The Doors for some reason, must
not have appreciated the L.A. rivalry.

On Friday, May 14, 2021 at 6:38:19 AM UTC-4, Norbert K wrote:
> From Rolling Stone's "Ask Croz" Column:
>
> Q: Settle this once and for all: Beatles or Stones?
>
> A: Beatles! Mainly because of the range of stuff that they did. The Stones did have a fairly wide range, but the Beatles had a much wider range of writing that they could do. And the Beatles could sing harmony; the Stones can't do that for squat. But the Beatles can do it really well. It's a matter of personal taste, of course; but for me, it's the Beatles, no question.

RIP David Crosby.