Polar Opposites

I was recently asked, "if you were on a desert island, which music would you choose to have with you: the Stones or the Beatles?"

Here was my response. In retrospect, I think it was pretty insightful.

Stones or Beatles...it's not a good question. Polarizing questions are never good, in my opinion. But if you have to slice up the world, I'm happy you at least made one stipulation...being stranded on an island. Assuming you had unlimited or renewable battery power, I would choose the Beatles strictly because they offer more variety and after a certain point, too much of anything will drive you insane. All four of the Beatles sang. They went through a variety of phases with styles so different, they ceased to resemble themselves. They embraced a number of aestetics, social issues, cultures and philosophies. They were both irreverent and sweet, surreal and poignant, romantic and inaccessible. I once went to a one-man play in NYC put on by a guy who lauded the Stones for their various textures as metaphor for his fucked up alcoholic and drug-ridden life. The stones embodied what it really was to live a hard life and survive, and they helped him through it all. So I guess the question is, if you're on a desert island, do you want escape or realism? Which would you choose?