The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Excellent point Audiofeil!

IMO, the works of Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, etc. stay fresher because they are constantly reinterpreted by conductors and musicians. Just look the debates aficionados have about the merits of many recorded versions of the same symphonies.

The Beatles' music, on the other hand, is primarily heard the same way every time as performed and recorded by the lads,(not counting interpretations used in commercials). I can understand how someone might be burned out by over saturation.

The opportunity to be over exposed by the masters of classical could not occur in the same way that The Beatles could. There was no way to hear the masters of the classical that you mention daily because there was no way to reproduce the composers music over and over and over on a daily basis unless mozart,bach or beethoven went from town to town country to country doing nonstop performances and you as a person had the luxery to be at each and every show. Until the advent of the phonograph or radio did the masses have a chance to hear these songs over and over and over on a daily basis. When The Beatles were in there prime They were on saturday cartoons,on AM and FM how many times a day,they are ingrained in my brain.

the beatles/ the stones/ led zepplin/ the who/ pink floyd....in that order....next jimi, cream, the small faces, the yardbirds, the byrds.....my top ten for output and importance.......honorable mention, the hollies, whose new lp is incredible.

Jaybo, you missed the Kinks!