Which do you like better The Rolling Stones or the Beatles??

I personally like the Rolling Stones better even though both groups are amazing.

As in regard to the 70s and as the Beatles had offically split on 31st December 1970 and no further songs came from the Beatles till Free As A Bird in 1995, it has to be the Rolling Stones.

If I understand the real intent of your question, this one may be better suited for the "More Than A Decade" board.

Given that, to take nothing away from the incredible Rolling Stones,

for me, it's got to be BEATLES!!!  :D

The Beatles, of course!

BEATLES

Without a doubt, The Beatles!  :)

The Beatles

Tough choice but I'm goin' with The Stones

I can't choose, so I pick The Rolling Beatles :D

I LOVED the songs The Stones did in the 80s 8)

The Beatles.  :)

The Beatles. However, the Stones weren't something to reckon with, either. In fact, they were more diverse than the Beatles, imho.

Well...If we're talking about what was released in the 1970's, then I definately have to go with the Rolling Stones. However, I do prefer what the various ex-Beatles did in terms of music in the 1970's over the music the Rolling Stones produced during that same period.

Now, in terms of amazing music in any era, Ill have to go with The Beatles. I say that because I dont particularly like Mick Jaggers voice on many of the Stones songs, though the ones I do like I REALLY like, such as Angie and others.







AN

Beatles!

Absolutely BEATLES.

Beatles

Elvis!

Elvis!
If it was not for Elvis, there would not been The Beatles or The Rolling Stones.

I can't believe you even asked this. There is no comparing the Stones and the Beatles. The Stones have more than proven themselves the better band, having been together and performing for almost 40 years. When the going got tough, they didn't give up. Noooo, they just did more drugs and went on another tour! The Beatles... bunch of quitters!

I dont know why, but I've always liked the Stones more.

At first I prefered The Beatles, then I prefered The Rolling Stones, and now I prefer both.

Sorry to jump in so late in this thread but I have to say The Stones. The Beatles were too pop for me but the Stones really made me listen to not only the lyrics but the different instruments also. Keith Richards was a pure genius. Not taking away anything from the Beatles as I am aware of the many artists that have been influenced by them. But does everyone know that Ringo did not play the drums on alot of the Beatles recordings? Paul did because Ringo when all was said and done just wasnt that good of a recording artist. He was much better live.

Sorry to jump in so late in this thread but I have to say The Stones. The Beatles were too pop for me but the Stones really made me listen to not only the lyrics but the different instruments also. Keith Richards was a pure genius. Not taking away anything from the Beatles as I am aware of the many artists that have been influenced by them. But does everyone know that Ringo did not play the drums on alot of the Beatles recordings? Paul did because Ringo when all was said and done just wasnt that good of a recording artist. He was much better live.


Actually Ringo was a very accomplished drummer well before he was asked to join the group.  The only time McCartney played drums was when they were going through their difficulties at the end Ringo got tired of listening to the bickering and walked out on a couple of sessions.  Good for him, I know what it is like to be between bickering friends, it is awful.  They got him to come back and stopped the bickering long enough to finish off what they were doing.

The Beatles

The Beatles.

Why? The Rolling Stones did some good songs in the 60's, but in the 70's they started to fall apart. And in the 80's they had a couple of good songs, but to me they're like 'The Simpsons of Rock'. They never seem to go away and they overcame their stay.

And if the Beatles stayed together that long, it would've been hell.