Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
Wouldn't the Stones have been the original hipsters? The Beatles were a lot more poppy.
I think both are great, but McCartney is twice the musician against anyone in the Stones. Even looking at their post-70s output, McCartney has made some genuinely great albums (his last few including and since Memory Almost Full have been fantastic) whereas the Stones are still running on the nostalgia of "We're the Stones!"
|
A conversation as old as time.
One thing that amazes me about the Stones it their ability to survive and remain relevant (yeah I get it they ain't been in some years, but they are 100 yrs old now). It is a case of the sum being better than the parts.
Much like with athletes there is something to be said about longevity.
Often it comes down to personal taste when you discuss Beatles v Stones.