Apparantly you're only allowed to like one or the other - The Beatles or The Rolling Stones. It's a bit like Metallica or Iron Maiden; Led Zeppelin or Deep Purple. Or to take it to an extreme: Take That or East 17!
I don't understand this debate. Why can you not love both? Why limit yourself to one band when you can have twice the musical magic instead? Surely it's a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face as my mother would say?
Maybe I'm getting old. I'm sure that the sixteen year old me would happily recite me a list of reasons why you can only like one or the other, and only mix with those who have the same opinions as you. At the grand old age of 25 (going on 65 some days) I find myself being much more liberal. I like to call it 'liberal' rather than thinking I have lost the passion I had for things at sixteen.
I remember having a debate with my Dad at that age. I told him I would never lose my individuality; my sense of injustice and desire to change the world; my belief that Che Guevara really was the most brilliant political activist to walk on this earth.
Maybe my stage seven has come early. I'm having my middle life crisis at twenty five. Perhaps I just need to buy myself a motorbike... maybe that's what's missing. (Then I'd have to stop listening to The Who - that's not biker music!)
2 comments:
I remember my brother telling me I couldn't like Oasis and Blur at the same time.
Now I don't like either.
I'd forgotten the 'Oasis or Blur' thing. My sister liked Blur so I liked Oasis on principle!
Post a Comment