I couldn't answer the "Beatles or Stones" question in the Personal Info area of my account here. I have never had an easy answer to this question. I like them both in different ways.

My first memory of hearing the Beatles knowingly (I am sure I actually heard their music before this) is a childish recollection of Yellow Submarine. I usually try to suppress this, for obvious reasons. Growing up, there was more Beatles music in the house than Rolling Stones. My acquaintance with the Stones later came when my step-mother bought me a Greatest Hits compilation - Rolled Gold - one Christmas in the mid-1970s. (For the avoidance of doubt, I was a red-headed step-child. Who knows what that might explain.)

Rolled Gold ("the very best of the Rolling Stones") was a double LP on Decca. It starts with a few covers (including a Lennon & McCartney song - I Wanna Be Your Man), and runs through the 1960s to the tension of Sympathy for the Devil, Street Fighting Man, Midnight Rambler and Gimme Shelter. I loved the first side, especially Little Red Rooster, and the last, grimmest side. These songs - dirty, gritty, heartfelt - are the Rolling Stones for me. They speak to my emotions. All the elements - vocals, melody, rhythm (even the cowbells) - work together as a team without excessive analysis. It looks so easy, and yet we know it is hard.

On the other hand, the Beatles' songs most often speak to my head, rather than my heart. They are more analytical, carefully composed, a little too cool, obviously carefully assembled. Is that George Martin's fault? I don't know. What I do know is that I still like the music. I need it in a different way. Although cerebral, I find it comforting and reliable.

The Blur/Oasis opposition that the media set up at the height of Britpop turned on "head vs heart" in a similar way. There are similar oppositions in other areas of music too. Joining Blur and the Beatles in the "head" camp I have Bach and the Decemberists, for example. The "hearts" mob contains, with the Stones and Oasis, Beethoven and the Arcade Fire.

Watching the TV coverage of The Arcade Fire at Glastonbury in the summer, I was inspired by their viscerally intoxicating performance to buy Neon Bible. It was a disappointment. On the other hand, I have played the Decemberists albums to death. They work as recordings, but I read a review of one of their live performances last week that was luke-warm at best. They play to different strengths.

So, don't make me choose between the Beatles and the Stones. I can't do it. The Monkees as a third choice? In the immortal words of Charlie Brown: oh good grief.