like how when it comes down to listenability, who's next is more valuable than all albums by the other two bands combined. it's aged better or something. or something.

Never liked the who, I find them a bit dull.

Stones have some ok stuff, nothing too great.

Beatles are better and more enjoyable, although overrated in certain aspects.

I actually think The Who have dated horribley. all those harmonized aaaahs sound so cheesey.

I still think the beatles and the stones sound good though. If we're getting down to it though, the 60s is all about the kinks.

__________________
love is from hell

yeah. the who were pretty godawful to begin with.

and i don't know where we come up w/ the stones not aging well.

__________________
p

The stones from the old times haven't aged that well as people, but I think their music has. I think the Beatles from Rubber Soul onwards have aged well, but with their earlier stuff I get a bit of a "well, it was another time, another place" vibe.
The Who? Always a better idea than a band, but they didn't completely suck. They didn't die though. Mostly.

__________________
Time is the distance that you can't return by miles.

I escaped somehow. Let's go

actualy [sic] I have quite a blessed life if I'm honest. I have many people to love, hate few and have few money problem's [sic].... What more does a person need? Oh yeah and I have some kind of humbleness unlike you of course ^_^ ~ CarefulCarpenter