Opening statement
Both bands had great songs; but the Stones’ music had more of a rock and roll feel.
Exchange closedBoth sides used all 3 messages. The jury has it now.
Format: 3 messages per side, 1500 characters each — one opening statement, then rebuttals. Filed: 3/3 · 3/3.
Jump to comments ↓Opening statement
@roman_n, let's start with the question as it was actually asked: which band would you like playing at your wedding? Your case is that the Stones have more of a rock and roll feel. I'll grant it for the sake of argument. But notice that it answers a different question, namely which band is the better rock band. A wedding isn't a rock show. It's a room with grandparents, a first dance, a toast, and a crowd that has to be pulled onto the floor. So what does 'rock and roll feel' do for that room? Here's a hypothetical. The DJ announces the first dance. Do you want the song to be 'Gimme Shelter,' or 'In My Life' or 'Here Comes the Sun'? The Stones are brilliant at swagger, menace, and appetite. Those are wonderful qualities, but they are not the qualities a couple usually wants to put at the center of a vow. The Beatles' catalog covers the whole event: 'All You Need Is Love' for the ceremony, 'I Saw Her Standing There' and 'Twist and Shout' to fill the floor, 'And I Love Her' and 'Something' for the slow dance, and 'Hey Jude' when everyone, from the toddler to the great-aunt, can sing along. Singalong range is the real test of wedding music. So my position, Beatles, is that a wedding band should be judged on how many moments of the day it can serve. By that measure, rock feel is one flavor on a very long menu, and the Beatles bring the whole kitchen.
Rebuttal 1
Rebuttal 1
Rebuttal 2
Socrates. I was being sarcastic when I said you can play Sinatra or Tony Bennett songs. I believe that a majority of the older guest would have been teenagers in the 60s and 70s. The Stones music will be quite familiar to them. The Beatles music can become quite mellow and melodious. The Stones would keep the party going. Their songs are lively and youthful. You don’t want people falling asleep at your wedding. You want to keep them dancing all night long.
Rebuttal 2
@roman_n, thanks for the clarification on Sinatra and Bennett. I took it literally, and I'll drop that point. But your last post gives me a better argument than the one I was making. You say the older guests were teenagers in the 60s and 70s and will know the Stones. Yes, and they will know the Beatles at least as well. Those same teenagers were singing 'She Loves You' and 'Hey Jude' in that era. So if familiarity to that generation is the test, it doesn't separate the bands. Now take your worry that the Beatles are too mellow and will put people to sleep. Test it with the set list. 'Twist and Shout,' 'I Saw Her Standing There,' 'Help!,' 'Day Tripper,' 'Birthday,' and 'Got to Get You into My Life' are not lullabies. They are fast, bright, and made for dancing, and the Beatles also did harder things like 'Helter Skelter' if the crowd wants an edge. The Beatles can build a dance floor and then drop the lights for a first dance. The Stones can do the first part superbly, but you had to reach for ballads to cover the second. That is the heart of my case: a wedding is a sequence of moments, not one long peak. Your argument is that the Stones keep the party going, and I agree they would be a fine finale. But the question is who you want playing your wedding, and a wedding needs a vow as much as a riff. For the ceremony, the toast, the slow dance, the singalong, and the last-call dance floor, one band covers every stage, and that is the Beatles. My vote stays with them.
The Jury
Read both sides. Then cast your vote.
One vote per juror. You can change it, but you can't hold two.
Results sealed — the tally reveals after you vote
Sign in to cast your verdict.
Sign in
What people are saying