I see no comments about hookers though.

I'm convinced if Big 3, Norg , Flying Pig & Neapolitan ever got involved in a debate the universe would implode.

...and no comments about Derek yet, aka the idiot that lives downstairs.

It's early days and his cover's not blown yet.

Kids today don't know the Beatles? Thats ridiculous. I don't know any kids who dont know the Beatles, whether they like them or not. They still sell as many albums a year as the best selling artists today.

And whoever laughed at the comment about bands being influenced by them in 200 years, it may be a little far-fetched but if there's any band who can stay relevant that long, it's the Beatles. And maybe a few others. They're still goin strong 50 years after they were making music.

According to the latest Nielsen figures, overall music sales in the U.S. have increased for the first time in years, mainly thanks to extremely strong sales of the Beatles digital catalog. Vinyl records are the fastest growing form of music in American and who has had the top selling vinyl the past two years? The beatles.

Doesn't make them good. Again, Britney and GaGa blow up the charts, but their stuff isn't good. Sales mean nothing.

That was me. And I stand by my little laughy-face. If looking backward in time 200 years is any indication, it's not the pop music that survives the centuries, it's the art music. 200 years in the future people are going to be far more likely to be influenced by someone like Charles Mingus or Philip Glass than they are to be influenced by the Beatles.

No it doesnt make them good. But they're great anyway. Comparing brittney spears to the Beatles is ridiculous.

And I'm not saying the Beatles will be relevant in 200 years, but if any rock band will be its them. It's not normal for pop music to continue topping charts 50 years after they stopped making music. They were more than just a typical pop band. Justin beiber and lady gaga will not have the lastin impact of the Beatles, you can count on that.

I just said what I said, and it was wrong, or it was taken wrong. From what I remember of the story is that Keith and Mick approached John and Paul at a club they went off to a corner and came back with a song written on a (something like) a pack of matches. What supprised Keith was that it took five minutes and that Paul and John work together on the song, (beacuse written was an inidvidual endeavor for the members of the Stones). Now maybe it wasn't a night club and maybe it wasn't on the back of a pack of matches and maybe the Stones were not being helped by The Beatles. I'm a bit rusty on my Stones folk-lore. But I was alway under the impression the song was meant for the Stones and then The Beatles decided to record it also - that was from the story I heard/read. And the only reason I mentioned it that song was because I don't consider the Stones following in the footsteps of The Beatles, or being Beatle wanna-bees like The Beatles felt all bands that came after them were. That basically the Stones were independant of The Bealtes- but I felt I was compelled bring up that one incident because I was afraid of being called on the carpet for it by a Beatles fan for ignoring that fact that the Stones have a song they recorded penned by Lennon and Mc Cartney.

Now if John is using the word "give" how can it be that "neither band had anything to do with it."?

If it broke the Top 40 I can't see how it wouldn't be considered a hit.

There have been bands just as good from the 1980s to present day, its just a case of adapting and changing your music tastes slightly to appreciate these bands

Only when people stop looking to the past with nostalgia filters in full effect.