I'd say The Beatles. Why?

*More successful/popular
*More musically diverse
*They're not still around (although I wish Lennon was)
*They sound better
*They are more influential.

I think both are overrated, to varying degrees, but to me comparison is a joke.  Of course it's The Beatles.

voted Beatles. I'm  the #1 fan there.
That said, there is MUCh to say for The ROlling Stones.
I really like to listen to the early Stones. WOW. 2 different styles .
The Beatles were just more for me.

I would bet the farm on this one. Ladies and gentleman, please give a warm applause to
The Beatles    I saw the Stones a few years back and knew maybe half the songs they played. I will agree that they have a TON of good music/hits, but they also have a lot of not so well known songs that don't excite me, so when it comes to the Rolling Stones, I skip to the hits. With the Beatles I can listen to the whole album, any one and am satisifed. John's vocals were amazing, who didn't wanna be Paul Mccartney during the 60's. 40+ years later and still sounds as good now, as it did then. but this is my opinion

Done to death!  :D :P

The Beatles

Done to death!  :D :P
Luke, it will never be done.  :)

Well, I would have to say the Beatles because i like more of their songs... I only like 3 or 4 from Rolling Stones, and I like probably 10 or 12 from The Beatles.

And like schmartypants said earlier, the Stones do have two different styles.  I like the "As Tears Go By"  "Ruby Tuesday"  "Mothers Little Helper" style... I don't care for the "Jumpin Jack Flash" style at all.

As for the Beatles, I especially like their ballads like "The Long And Winding Road", "Something", etc...  but even my least favorites of theirs (Yellow Submarine, Get Back, A Little Help From My Friends) are more tolerable than the worst of Rolling Stones.

The Stones the Beatles passed  ;D

I always liked The Rolling Stones just a bit more  :)

[quote author=whis

The Beatles were more varied musically, but the Rolling Stones have obviously had more music and a longer time span.

The Fab 4 had better studio albums. I can listen to Sgt. Peppers and the White Album start to finish and not get tired of it. Paul McCartney is my overall fave of the guys.

One commonality they've got, IMO, is their impact on music to come, not only in the post-1964 60's, but in the decades since (at least before hip hop overtook rock). The Beatles were more influential to pop, while the Stones did paved the way for harder rock -- from what I know, back in the 60's, they tended to appeal to the "tougher" crowd.

P.S. As an 80's fan, the Stones added to the tons of songs I like from that era, with "Start Me Up", "Rock and a Hard Place", "She's so Cold" and "Miss You" (this is 78-ish, but sounds 80's to me).

The Stones rocked in the 80's O0  I still love their '86 hit "Harlem Shuffle' and the cool animated video that went with it :)

The Rolling stones Purely for their longevity and their service to the Music industry as a band for over 40 years.

The Beatles were the greatest for their time, and obviously each member had a reasonably successful career after the beatles.

The rolling stones have always been my all time favourite band, metallica 2nd, Beatles 3rd.

Without a doubt, The Beatles!  :)

Beatles. No question or hesitation. The Stones expired about 30 years ago, and they're still polluting the musical refrigerator.

Definitely the Beatles!

When it comes to the Rolling Stones, I like the old sh*t, 60's and 70's. Excellent songs. They had that darker, mysterious thing going also.