Sneer

before you attack me, i love both these bands...however...
points 1 and 2 are matters of opionion. its subjective. point 3 is totally irrevelant to the topic. how does the woman on your arm effect how good the music is? point 4- again its personal opinion. some people prefered the flower-power hippy idealisms to the rock n roll facade in the 60s. no. 5 is not entirely correct as the white album, yellow submarine and 1 did not feature their faces. Anyway, merely having the band name is just as effective as the band pictures and im pretty sure the stones had their name on every frontcover of their albums. no. 7...how does playing at gunpoint make you a better band than someone else? no. 9 wasnt exactly the bands was it? they were solo projects and we're not talking about solos. no. 10, the beatles image was pure 60s- it was the fad of the day just as the long haired, emo look is nowadays. did the stones crasck america in anyway near the extent the beatles did? im sure they didnt. granted the stones have had a longer career and that is the mark of a great band. but i still prefer the beatles

__________________
Fright Team radio show