I have a feeling after that comment the Beatles fanboys may divert their attention away from me a little while :D

Why did you have to say that Janszoon? I normally agree with everything you say. This is an exception.

of course The Beatles had a shorter time together as a band then the Stones, even The Who, and The Kinks, but everything The Beatles was really good and they're still a great band regardless how long they stayed together.

The Beatles were good from 1963 up until their break up.

The Stones were good from 1965 until 1972.

So nah, they both had an equally long run as far as quality is concerned. And The Beatles at least knew when to quit.

:banghead:

The Stones were good from 1965 until 1978
:thumb:

I just don't like the direction they took with Exile. To quote Ian Stewart, they pretty much turned into a poor man's Status Quo.

Also if you count John, Paul and Georges solo stuff that gives The Beatles at least 3 more years. :D

The Stones put out some fantastic singles in the 70s. Even if you don't rate their albums I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

know when you hold em'
know when to fold em'
and know when to walk away.

thats mr. kenny rodgers. i find it very true myself.

Heh. Honestly I didn't even think it would be all that controversial of a statement. I've always understood that even Beatles fanboys don't give much respect to their output prior to Rubber Soul. That gives them four years of making good music, five if you like Let It Be. Even if one is to say that the Stones didn't start making really notable music until 1965, the same year Rubber Soul came out, the Stones still put out quality music for at least twice as long as the Beatles.

1960? ;)

Not cool.

I personally respect all of the Beatles work. With the exception of a few bad stray turds in there, overall I like them front to back.