When comparing the longevity of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones should we infer the concentration of power.
Thinking of those curious and music fans who share the present time, I commented that in the same year and in the same place ever matched were two exceptions: The Beatles and The Rolling Stones.
Indeed, in 1962 and in England these two ensembles emerged, largely successful although very different.
Do not know everything about them because the real stories have had to compete unfavorably with commercial stories. These are more credible because they are more attractive and consumers do not want truth but apparently true funny stories.
Our appetite is so intense that surely the people involved in those stories doubt whether what happened is real or what we believed happened after consuming commercial stories, ie: the legends, mythology, the fabulous.
Some data seem certain:
In addition to the year and place of formation, The Beatles broke up in 1970 and The Rolling Stones are still together.
Another important fact is that apparently The Beatles its four members acted as leaders, while The Rolling Stones remained the sole leadership of Mick Jagger.
This made me think that The Beatles were anatomically monstrous and The Rolling Stones are normal.
It is possible to assume that the longevity of one and the other group is determined by its normal. In short, a living with four heads live fewer years than one with a single head, ie with a single central nervous system.
We can also think that strong institutions (lived) have concentrated power (head only), while weak institutions power is distributed.
We survive as a species? Because very few have power?
Note: Original in Spanish (without translation by Google): La concentración de poder es conveniente.
(Este es el Artículo Nº 1.974)