October 20, 2010: The Rolling Stones - Play With Fire

The Rolling Stones - Play With Fire: youtube.com/watch?v=u5vn6OqnD_Q

I've been meaning to learn this song. It makes me excited.

I have taken to asking a question of friends: If you could be 17 again and had the option of seeing The Beatles in their prime or The Rolling Stones in their prime, who would you see?

And that said, who would you want to see at your current age?

I feel that underlying this question is really a style vs substance argument. The Rolling Stones were rebellious and dangerous where The Beatles were compositionally superior and somewhat safe (as far as conservative tastes go). There wasn't much sex in The Beatles, or, relatively more in The Rolling Stones. And so I think The Stones answer reveals more a lean to style, The Beatles answer more to substance.

And this question is relative, of course. There was substance in what The Stones did and there was style in what The Beatles did. And both strongly. But for the sake of comparison, neglecting any other music that was ever made, I feel the argument holds.

Personally I think I would have, at 17, gone to see the Beatles but I'd like to say the Rolling Stones. And now, at 26, I would see the Rolling Stones in their prime over the Beatles in their prime. I don't know what that says about me.