The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

8 July 2007

In spite of all the danger

Two kinds of people in this world, says Blythe:

Stones people, Beatles people and people who divide the world into two groups of people, which is three groups, so there's really a fourth which consists of people who cannot count. I am firmly in the Beatles camp. I'll be friends with you if you're a Stones kinda kid, but I will never date you (probably for many reasons which are my fault, but let's not get into that). And if you've no opinion one way or another, that's a total deal breaker except right now I don't have a lot of friends, so I'd probably let it slide. For now.

Despite the fact that the very first record I ever bought was a Stones single ("Satisfaction," in the summer of '65), I am more of a Beatles person, if only because I bought everything they put out, whereas I bought only most of the Stones' stuff. There is inevitably some overlap, if only because the Stones' second single was a Beatles song: "I Wanna Be Your Man." (In the States, the first Stones release was their third single, "Not Fade Away," their Buddy Holly remake, which was issued here with "I Wanna Be Your Man" on the flip.)

Blythe also lists her top ten Beatles tracks, two of which are also on my list, which follows in no particular order:

  • "I Saw Her Standing There"
  • "I Feel Fine"
  • "In My Life"
  • "What You're Doing"
  • "Here, There and Everywhere"
  • "Strawberry Fields Forever"
  • "I Am the Walrus"
  • "I Will"
  • "Here Comes the Sun"
  • "Let It Be" (45 version)

I hasten to add that this in no way constitutes a bid for a date.

Posted at 10:49 AM to Tongue and Groove


I'm a Beatles person too. Though I like some Stones songs, they never did anything much for me. I was never a "It's the Beatles! SCREAM!!!!" kind of person, but I vastly preferred their music -- in the early 70s, when I began to really listen to music, it seemed that the Stones were too "dirty," while the Beatles, even in their druggy period, had a sort of innocence. Of course by the time I was old enough the Beatles had long vanished as a group, while the Stones are still around, but I've never wanted to see the Stones in concert. I got to see the Beatles in pieces -- I saw Paul McCartney on his last (I think) big world tour when he came to Florida, and I saw Ringo Starr, and I saw Julian Lennon, son of John. The only Beatle I've never seen live is George Harrison, which I rather regret.

Magical Mystery Tour is the third record album I ever owned. I still have it. (The first was The Archies Greatest Hits, which my dog destroyed by jumping on it after my sister left it on the bed out of its jacket, and -- I blush -- Neil Diamond's Jonathan Livingston Seagull.) I also have an old Stones album of their 60s stuff, from their "psychedelic" period, that someone gave to me.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at 5:39 PM on 8 July 2007

I like 'em both. A lot.

However, I end up coming down on the other side of the fence than you. I prefer the Stones, though their lead is a very small one.

I'll happily sing along (though poorly) with practically anything by either.

Posted by: unimpressed at 5:48 PM on 8 July 2007

I'd have to say I'm one of the "meh" contingent, though I have owned some Beatles vinyl and once inadvertently inherited "Sgt. Pepper" and part of "Abbey Road" on a cassette from an ex-girlfriend. I've never so much as downloaded a Stones track.

Interesting that there's no room for The Who in that matrix...

Posted by: McGehee at 7:27 PM on 8 July 2007

meh? beatles meh?! to each his own, i suppose. and there's a reason there's no room for The Who... I am a bit of a music snob, though.

Posted by: blythe at 11:39 PM on 8 July 2007

What can I say, Blythe? I'm already married.

Posted by: McGehee at 7:34 AM on 9 July 2007

What about us Monkees people? Huh??

Posted by: Mister Snitch! at 1:34 PM on 9 July 2007

Beatles. Definitely.

Posted by: Thomas Pfau at 2:50 PM on 9 July 2007