Elizabeth says: Hmmm. How about the first to reach five points?The Beatles had groundbreaking instrumental innovation that would echo through the ages. The Stones have Keith Richards. (Point: Beatles [grudgingly - love Keith])The Beatles had many more hits during their amazingly brief stint as a band. The Stones aren’t to blame for Love Me Do or I Wanna Hold Your Hand - or, for that matter, John Lennon’s entire solo career. (Point: Stones)The Beatles aren’t to blame for Mick Jagger’s dancing. (Point: Beatles)Or Ronnie Wood (Point: Beatles).Beatles: Ringo Starr. Stones: Charlie Watts (Point: Stones).Bands that were heavily influenced by the Beatles include Pink Floyd, Oasis. Bands that were heavily influenced by the Stones include Aerosmith, AC/DC. (Point: Stones)Stones: Beast of Burden. Beatles: The Long and Winding Road (Point: Stones).Beatles: Blackbird. Stones: Angie (Point: um...oh, wow...uh...Stones. No! Beatles). Stones: Let it Bleed. Beatles: The White Album (Point: Beatles).Oh! We have a winner. Verdict: Beatles. Huh. I’m actually surprised. Always thought I was a Stones person.
Luke Says: According to the Urban dictionary, Rolling Stones people are “brash, mature, extroverted, rebellious, cheeky, liberated, confident, sometimes sexually promiscuous” folks who consider themselves more highly evolved than the young and naïve Beatles people.
Easy: Beatles. Lover, not a fighter. Melody over volume. Beauty over brash. Songwriting over song-blasting. Short hair over long. A Hard Day’s Night over crappy Pirates of the Caribbean sequels.
Plus, at age 10, I convinced three friends to comb their hair mop-like and join me onstage to lip-sync Twist and Shout in front of all the other elementary kids in St. Mary’s gymnatorium. We blew the roof off the dump.
Kim says: Easy... Stones.
Beatles or Stones? Steak or Grapefruit? I'd probably give the nod to The Beatles, but that's hardly a diss to The Stones. Certainly, across the period both bands were active, The Beatles hgands down; let's face it, The Beatles' career was almost over before the Stones even released a decent album.
Posted by: Dominick Grace | 05/31/2011 at 10:51 PM
The Beatles, hey they started the new hair craze, cant forget beatle boots as a major fashion statement, the whole Indian shirt, and stove pipe pants....its got to be
The Beatles, cause..I just want to hold your hand Iwant to hold your hand....and Love love me true....oh yea....!!!!
Posted by: Rcleary | 05/31/2011 at 11:45 PM
Are you kidding? Beatles have made more then the Stones ever will and they were only together for 7 years. I can still listen to all their music.
Posted by: Steve | 06/01/2011 at 12:38 AM
It's easy, the Beatles have out sold the Stones every single year from the beginning till now. Beatles hands down
Posted by: John | 06/01/2011 at 12:40 AM
Too bad Mick didn't sing with the Fab 4. They both are great but the beatle music including their solo careers transcended a huge rainbow. Mick basically had Satisfaction or just the color red.
Posted by: Lorne | 06/01/2011 at 01:27 AM
Easy the Beatles. By far more versatile than the Stones.
Posted by: rich | 06/01/2011 at 01:35 AM
I love both bands, but, when it comes to choosing the creme de la creme, it HAS to be Beatles HANDS DOWN! They not only changed the face of popular music, they were cultural icons...even the Stones tried to emulate their success.
Posted by: jay | 06/01/2011 at 03:45 AM
Both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were extraordinary survivors in the music business. Both bands were impressionable, large !!!! John Shmuir
Posted by: John Shmuir | 06/01/2011 at 06:36 AM
Beatles had far better harmony and instrument playing. Also, McCartney and Harrison alone (let alone those other two) had more talent than Stones combined. No contest.
Posted by: Joe | 06/01/2011 at 07:58 AM
The Beatles vs. The Stones?
That's easy: The Who.
Posted by: Long Live Rock | 06/01/2011 at 08:44 AM
The Beatles were more of a pop band whereas the Stones had more of a bluesy feel which always appealed more to my ears . I have about 14 Beatles albums and over 70 Rolling Stones albums (different covers etc.) I have always appreciated both bands and the legacy they have left, Great Stuff!!!!
Posted by: Pete | 06/01/2011 at 09:05 AM
Beatles= Art
Rolling Stones = Attitude
Posted by: JPS | 06/01/2011 at 03:12 PM
The Beatles were together for only about 10 years and still had more hits than the Rolling Stones. On each of their original albums almost every song is good, no other act has this distiction.
Posted by: Lorne | 06/01/2011 at 09:25 PM
Stones Picked them because of their longevity in the music industry
Posted by: Fred | 06/02/2011 at 12:20 AM
The Beatles were the ground breakers for many groups.They changed their style when the others tryed to imitate their's. They changed the way we looked! They broke new grounds with different songs and experimented with diferrent instrunemts and orchestras. They really had a style of their own!!!They were the BEATLES!
Posted by: Gary | 06/02/2011 at 12:25 AM
Beatles who...? John Lennon maybe, but who's been rocking for longer & stronger - the Stones baby. the Beatles are dead and snorted up Keef's nose.
Posted by: Gunner | 06/02/2011 at 12:26 AM
I liked the Beatles until the Rolling Stones came along. Mind you they are both bands from England and came out at about the same time only they have different styles of music. Stones had to prove their worth where as the Beatles were worshipped just because they conformed with the establishment at that time.
Posted by: Bird | 06/02/2011 at 12:48 AM
Both bands have had a dramatic impact on the world of music. Perhaps even equally so, but the Beatles were the first soldiers in the British invasion of North America. Therefore, they should get the top spot. I know it's a shitty reason but it eliminates any criteria based on personal taste.
Posted by: Rebel | 06/02/2011 at 01:02 AM
Both bands are incredible, no doubt. But the Beatles started a revolution, or well, they were an immense part of it. The Stones played in it too, just not as much.
Posted by: Bamf | 06/02/2011 at 03:09 AM
Well the Beatles came on the scene a little earlier with the most original sound until then. Their music was somewhat more proper and softer They had better singing.
Posted by: Pierre | 06/02/2011 at 05:34 AM
A Beatles album (a collection of their number one hits) went to number one on the charts, 30 years after the group disbanded. This says a great deal.
Posted by: Brent | 06/02/2011 at 05:57 AM
Just look at their solo albums. All Beatles had incredible careers. Mick and Keith, need I say more.
Posted by: Vinny | 06/02/2011 at 07:02 AM
tough call . as for musical ability , big beatles victory . the stones had a raw edge with a comepletely different style ( apples and oranges i suppose ) . lennon had one of the gretest rock voices ever but no-one slung down and dirty like keith . i think if the beatles were still going today , the stones would still sell out shows in 5 minutes flat ahead of them . but back in the day , it was , and still is , the fab 4 . just sayin' .
Posted by: thebeerhunter | 06/02/2011 at 07:04 AM
Can you give a shout
John!
Paul!
George!
and Ringo!
I give you !!!!!!
THE BEATLES
Posted by: Neil | 06/02/2011 at 07:09 AM
Which band could play more instruments? Beatles
Which band had more vocalists? Beatles
Which band was more socially important? Beatles
Which band lead the way? Beatles
Which band had more number one hits? Beatles
Which band is still played more often on the radio? Beatles
Which band can more people name? Beatles
Posted by: GlennH | 06/02/2011 at 07:28 AM