THE BEATLES vs THE ROLLING STONES !!!!!!! Who wins ??

[Tweetlisa]

Beatles!

[iluvmusic]

THE STONES!!

[grimoneus]

The Beatles of course...

[p.hanson]

BEATLES!!!

[Lady Freckleface]

The Beatles pwn the Stones' faces... biatch.

[musiclovesryan]

The Beatles...not contest.  They did everything, plus considering their social impact and the fact that they did music that really can't be compared to anyone else's.  Plus, Lennon/McCartney are probably the greatest songwriting team ever!

[Fueled_By_FBR]

The Beatles obviously have the upper hand.

[willingmind]

   So this thread is active again. How silly it ever was. The Beatles VS The Stones? Ridiculous. If all you all ever wanted to do was type up who you would rather listen to then the thread should of been something like: Who do you prefer to listen to?... yada,yada,yada

   In any case, a moldy post from the past says it all again for me:

  It is the Stones imperfections that make them Rock Legends. Their "loose" style that is often copied yet never surpassed. They are certainly a true Blues based Rock band yet have forayed into almost every musical genre you can think of. From Country to Jazz and so forth. Blues based remaining ever their first calling.
  Not so much during the Mick Taylor years, but definitely since Ron Wood came on the scene, they don't even have a true lead guitarist. Just the way Keith likes it. Woody and Keith are Masters of the weaving of the guitars. They have a Jazz Man behind the drum kit. (Charlie holds his sticks like a Jazz drummer.) And Sir Mick, well, just try and keep him off the stage. Give him postage stamp sized stage or stadium sized, and he cannot help but work it. There was never anything that Bill couldn't do with a bass guitar either. I think he has one that can even make espresso. Not that Darryl is a slouch either. Darryl came over from playing with the Legendary Jazz player Miles Davis. And the fated Brian? Without him, you have no Stones.

  That said, arguing with a Beatles fan is ludicrous. Like arguing Led Zeppelin and The Who. Or Pink Floyd and Grateful Dead. Or The Supremes and The Temptations. Or Barry White and Al Green. You get it yet? ALL Legends.
  No one can take away what the Beatles have contributed. Lennon and McCartney were already prolific songwriters before Jagger and Richards gave it a go. Speaking of John and Sir Paul, with Lennon's existential meanderings and McCartney's almost vaudevillian styling, coupled with Harrison's mystical technical superiority and Ringo's enthusiastic stick work, you have a mixture that was sanctioned by the Rock n Roll gods themselves.
  Beatles and Rolling Stones are both equally recognized as trailblazers. Anyone who wishes to truly appreciate the beautiful history that marks the birth of Rock n Roll has no choice but to spend time with both these bands. To immerse oneself in the history, from Chuck and Buddy, from Dylan and Simon & Garfunkel, from Alice and Zappa, and so on, is going to make for a wonderful journey that is going to make whatever music one prefers to listen to that much more understood. To undertake the journey means everyone wins.

   Knowing the true history of modern music from its blues and gospel and jazz and son base is how one grows to appreciate all influential music and how anyone got to the music they are choosing to listen to today.

[Superflymo86]

I think many people are forgetting the historical context in which The Beatles were making and performing their records.In terms of US Sale, the songs that the legacy of the songs they wrote, their technical ability, innovation, consistency, and ability to put on a bad #@$%#$ show, The Beatles win hands down. The Stones are a great band, and they certainly are the trailblazers for much of what we see and hear today. But your arguments as to WHY The Stones are better do not hold up. Putting on the "craziest show" does not mean you are a better band. In that case, there are many bands who put on shows in which the crowds go absolutely nutso, yet I don't think anyone would say that a band like Rage Against the Machine is better than The Stones. You cant set parameters for arguments that only apply to this matchup and not any other matchups. You also cant forget the culture and the historical context that these performers were part of. you have no idea what happened at these concerts because your clips dont show the LSDed out peeps trippin and the orgies that were going on in the darkest corners of those "strawberry fields."

[Lady Freckleface]

...yet I don't think anyone would say that a band like Rage Against the Machine is better than The Stones...

That made me giggle...

[~Tears Are Falling ~]

ante the beatles american and the rolling stones europian??

meh...there both pretty good. i say a tie.

[Mike Mars]

ante the beatles american and the rolling stones europian??

meh...there both pretty good. i say a tie.

Both of them are British........ How do you not know that the Beatles are British?

[cat27]

Too different to really compare...both great in their own right.

[~Tears Are Falling ~]

Both of them are British........ How do you not know that the Beatles are British?

ooooohhh and it was coz of that simpsons episode...homer crashed into the queen of elnglad and injyruind her and as hes getting draged away he calls out "our Beatles will always be better then ur precious rolling stones!" sorry i guess it was my fualt then....

[willingmind]

I think many people are forgetting the historical context in which The Beatles were making and performing their records.In terms of US Sale, the songs that the legacy of the songs they wrote, their technical ability, innovation, consistency, and ability to put on a bad #@$%#$ show, The Beatles win hands down. The Stones are a great band, and they certainly are the trailblazers for much of what we see and hear today. But your arguments as to WHY The Stones are better do not hold up.

   I am sorry, are we talking about the same "historical context" in which the Stones where making and recording in? And are you suggesting that the Beatles put on a "bad a*"ed show"? How would anyone have heard if they had? By the Beatles own admission they could not even hear themselves.
   I have no idea what you are going on about... In the UK, Cliff Richard had more number ones then the Lads from Liverpool. How is that for "historical context"? Does that make Cliffy-Boy better then the Beatles... or the Stones? As Rock~n~Roll gods as my witness I sure as heck hope NOT!