BEATLES OR STONES???

My vote is for Stones, based purely on Keith.

If you think we're gonna make it...
http://groups.msn.com/keithism

Queen

I make no apologies for being fabulous.

You can't just add bands in you know. That's a free for all. ;)

If you think we're gonna make it...
http://groups.msn.com/keithism

Stones

Who needs talent these days if you make out with your friend on stage? - Rabbitfighter

I'd have to go with "Stones". I actually own some albums by them, but I don't have anything by the "Beatles". They have some great stuff, too, but I was never motivated to buy it.

King Henry V: Canst thou love me?
Princess Katherine: I cannot tell.
King Henry V: Can any of your neighbors tell, Kate? I'll ask them.

In reply to:

---

You can't just add bands in you know. That's a free for all. ;)

---

Well, I truly do not like the Beatles, no matter how much stuff my friends have played for me to try to convince me. I recognize their importance, and totally don't fault anybody who admires them (such as Bowie and the members of Queen), but I just don't like them.

I'm not too keen on the Stones, either, but they are better than the Beatles, so:

Stones

I make no apologies for being fabulous.

The Beatles. For everything that involves John Lennon. He was my childhood obsession.
I was never into the Stones, although I do like them.

Actually, I'm a lab mouse on stilts.

Beatles, better music all around and they knew when to quit. Though the Stones probably made better rock n' roll.

Lennon.

KArt | Project Michelangelo | LiveJournal

Beatles

They have consistently stronger albums; and they improved over time.

The Atonal Express left the tonal world behind...
Atonalexpress