Desert Island: Beatles, Stones or Who?

[Czarcasm]

You are stuck on a desert island. Would you rather have(with, of course, the means to play the music) a complete collection of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones or The Who?

[Sage Rat]

I'll go with the sound of silence, thank you.

[Czarcasm]

Well, the poll says 100% would pick the Beatles.

[Nava]

I like the music of all three, to varying degrees, but it's hard to decide which ones I'd be more willing to put up with and less likely to attempt to poison... either the Who or the Beatles, but I'm not sure which ones.

[Lord Mondegreen]

Of the ones listed I chose the Beatles, but I would also seriously consider the unlisted Kinks. I think "Waterloo Sunset" is one of the best songs ever written and recorded.

Having said that, the Beatles have so many fantastic and varied songs that they are the obvious choice - I'm much less likely to be bored on a desert island with their catalog.

[RealityChuck]

I'd be happy with any of the three, but given a choice, I'd go with the Beatles.

[ghostman]

The Who?
exactly.

[lieu]

I'd probably go with Duran Duran, thereby giving myself plenty of impetus to get off my butt, build a raft and escape back to civilization.

Okay, tough to pass on the Beatles but I'll go with getting continously Stoned.

[GuanoLad]

Bananarama.

Or are you talking about music?

[Ian D. Bergkamp]

I like all three, but chose the Who. I'll admit that the Beatles and the Stones hit higher highs than the Who, but overall, the Who has more music that I like than the other two.

[digs]

I'd rather have the Stones with me on a desert island, because I just read an article by Bill Wyman in Wooden Boatbuilder.

[blondebear]

I'll take The Who, but I'll sure miss hearing the other two.

[Thudlow Boink]

Another vote for The Kinks.

Of the three listed, I'm a much bigger fan of the Beatles than of the other two. But, that could work against them. There's nothing new to discover in the Beatles' catalog, and why bother to bring the Beatles' collection with me when I can hear their songs in my mind just by thinking about them? But, though they're not my cuppa tea, there's a lot more Stones and Who stuff that has managed to escape my notice.

[Staggerlee]

The Stones of course. I might consider taking the Beatles LPs, assuming vinyl works as a decent firelighter.

[Moe]

Beatles hands down, no further consideration necessary. I can take or leave the first few albums but from Rubber Soul on nearly every song on every album is either perfect or comes damn close. They are one of the only bands that I've kept coming back to throughout my life and I've gone through a wide variety of styles and genres.

[tdn]

Originally Posted by lieu

I'd probably go with Duran Duran, thereby giving myself plenty of impetus to get off my butt, build a raft and escape back to civilization.

Why do that when you could have a yellow submarine at your disposal?

[multimediac17]

Out of those three, the Beatles, if this was just a general "which artist's catalogue would you take to a desert island?" thread then are 5 or 6 other artists I'd put ahead of them.

[Voyager]

I like all three, but the Beatles did a much wider range of music than the other two, from old time rock and roll to psychedelic to music hall songs to ballads. And very few clunkers.

[BubbaDog]

The Who.

With possibly the Stones as a close second.

I have a thing about the Beatles. About 10 years ago I decided that I was pretty much saturated with Sir Paul and his jingles. I will actually try to escape the area if I hear his voice and can't turn it off.

No arguments about Beatles genious, quality etc. I just had enough of it/

[Frank]

After great debate, I selected the Who. They're just that bit more . . .

I could live with the Beatles, easily.

[photopat]

The Beatles, although a fully charged cell phone with satellite transmission and gps would be preferable.

[An Arky]

I'm torn between the Beatles and the Who, so I'll just go with the Kinks.

[Quercus alba]

Might be more fun partying with Mick and Keith...

[MPB in Salt Lake]

The Who I suppose, but "Exile On Main St.", "Sticky Fingers" and "Some Girls" will be missed.......,

[pulykamell]

It was Beatles for me, although if the Kinks were included in the poll, that would be a very, very tough choice indeed. I think I might give the edge to the Kinks because their catalog is not quite as oversaturated in pop culture, but they do also have a lot of duds in their work. But Kink Kontroversy, Something Else by the Kinks, Village Green, Arthur, Lola, etc. Those make up for some of their weaker efforts.

[choie]

I estimate there are about 20 songs I love between the Stones and the Who. With the Beatles, I can count the songs I don't really really like on one hand -- with a finger or two left over!

So, yeah: the Beatles. Honestly, I can't think of another artist whose body of work I'd even consider choosing over theirs. Well, maybe Mozart. Even then it'd be a tough choice. (Mozart might win thanks to sheer volume; if you're stuck with a single artist, it just makes good sense to go with the guy with hundreds of pieces under his belt!)

[Jackmannii]

I'd just as soon have a collection of the Ramones, so I could go nuts that much faster.

Oh, and a Wilson brand volleyball.

[CanvasShoes]

Originally Posted by multimediac17

Out of those three, the Beatles, if this was just a general "which artist's catalogue would you take to a desert island?" thread then are 5 or 6 other artists I'd put ahead of them.

me too.


I'm not in the big group of people who think these three are the greatest rock bands ever.

[tr0psn4j]

The Who and The Rolling Stones have a bunch of great singles but almost every song from the Beatles is great.

I'll take The Beetles for the variety.

[Steophan]

The Stones. The Who would be ok, but there's much more Stones stuff I like. I'd kill myself in under an hour if you told me all I could listen to was the Beatles. I'd go so far as to say I'd volunteer to in to the island if you could guarantee I'd never have to hear their overrated, derivative shite again.

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by CanvasShoes

I'm not in the big group of people who think these three are the greatest rock bands ever.

No, but it's natural to compare them because they (and The Kinks) are all British Invasion bands with extensive discographies that were/are enormously popular and influential.

[GESancMan]

Well, I'd be happy to have gotten away from The Beatles, never having to hear anything by them again. Between the remaining choices... The Who is the better band, but The Stones have a much larger catalog. Since this is (I presume) the only music I will listen to for the rest of my life, for the sake of variety The Stones would be the logical choice. But in the end, I think I'd go with who (heh) I like better.

[TreacherousCretin]

Fabs.