The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

Which is better?

I think The Rolling Stones : )
...
But lots of people i talk to disagree....

What do you think?

I like both. Who says you have to pick one?

They both are great in different ways IMO...but the Beatles have more good songs. Though the good songs from the Stones are more fun...I don't know.
Inconclusive for me.
if I feel like dancing I listen to the Stones, if I feel like sitting around listening to music I listen to the Beatles.

The Beatles.

But then they did have the advantage of only being active for a short time compared to the Stones - it's much harder to maintain brilliance for 40 years compared to 10.

I think the Stones have some great songs, but the Beatles are.... the Beatles.

Originally Posted by different_13

But then they did have the advantage of only being active for a short time compared to the Stones - it's much harder to maintain brilliance for 40 years compared to 10.

QFT.

I personally think the Beatles were, all in all, better, but sometimes songs like "Let It Be" sound childish and empty to me, compared to "Satisfaction" or "Paint It Black".

The Beatles FTW!!
I think they had more better songs and stuff.....and meh Paul's still live and kicking.

The Beatles are better to listen to while sitting around and doing psychoactive substances. Rolling Stones imo are more driving music. theyre both good but beatles are better.

The Beatles undoubtedly, but recently I've really gotten into the Rolling Stones.

I prefer the Stones. Don't get me wrong, the Beatles have done some truly inspired work, but on the whole the Stones are better.
The early pop Beatles does nothing for me at all, and the odd Lennon stuff towards the end was, well... I can't find the right words ("Number Nine. Number Nine. Number Nine. Number Nine. Number Nine." Aaaargh!)

Commander_Vimes: Everyone always forgets Ringo...

Cant compare, the Beatles were more soft rock/pop oriented while the stones were Rock n Roll and R&B

Both are great bands I like more the Beatles but is only a personal opionion

Originally Posted by Ummagumma

Commander_Vimes: Everyone always forgets Ringo...

Is he also still making and playing successful songs? :hmmm:

Originally Posted by Commander_Vimes

Is he also still making and playing successful songs? :hmmm:

Paul stopped doing that in 1970.

Soft rock? Hm...maybe pre-1966.

Originally Posted by therussian

Soft rock? Hm...maybe pre-1966.

Well yeah the early Beatles the latter ones were more psychedelic rock and experimented a lot with all kinds of music but I was refering more to the early ones anyway they can't be compared to the Stones

Both are brilliant bands. You can't really compare the two. I have nearly every cd by the both of them and I really can't pick a favourite. I'm just glad we got to listen to their music. Unlike most of todays generation that won't ever know what real music sounds like.

Having never really been able to get into the Stones, I would have to go with The Beatles out of personal preference.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=101935

And the Stones can't be compared to the Beatles :wink:

Originally Posted by therussian

And the Stones can't be compared to the Beatles :wink:

Exactly

The Beatles are one of the greatest rock-and-roll bands ever.

Having said that, the Rolling Stones are synonymous with rock-and-roll. Insofar as how enduring and influential each band's music has been, one only needs to look at the amount of air play the Stones receive after all this time; how many sold out shows and tours they continue to put out.