Who's better the Beatles or the Rolling Stones

[slightlystoopid27]

Who is better The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?

[ColourHaze]

overall, id say the beatles.

if you look at in terms of early career vs. late career. the stones were way better in their early career, then then that being said, the beatles were just something else.

[uzybear]

i take issue with calling any band or music "better" than any other

it's the subjectivity of music that's the thing; you dig it, or you don't, and that's all that matters

how bout "which do you prefer"



but enough preaching, i'm for the beatles

[Dest]

the beatles where bigger but I like the rolling stones a lot more, and they are still around :D .

[thcbongman]

Eh, The Beatles, although not by much.

I found there were way better bands, far more underrated bands in the 60s and 70s than these two.

[Metaphor]

i have no respect for either.

and wtf, there two different types of music too, you cant really compare them the beatles are more poppish, whereas the stones are more typical "rock-n-roll" style if ya know what i mean

i vote for

THE VELVET UNDERGROUND!!!

[Dutch Pimp]

...the early Beatles...was a chick band....Stones aways a band for men....

..1964...I was 15 years old...when they all started..so I know them both well...I liked the Beatles better after they broke up as individuals....the Stones are the greatest SHOW band ....favorite song.."can't you me hear knockin"-Sticky Fingers

[thcbongman]

i have no respect for either.

and wtf, there two different types of music too, you cant really compare them the beatles are more poppish, whereas the stones are more typical "rock-n-roll" style if ya know what i mean

i vote for

THE VELVET UNDERGROUND!!!

This man knows what he's talking about!

[stinkyattic]

...the early Beatles...was a chick band....Stones aways a band for men....awww I'm a chick, and think that not only were they better then, they still rock to this day!
I do completely agree that the individual Beatles' solo careers were FAR more interesting than their group efforts, which I think were often a touch trite and pop-y.

[SonicBloom]

I pick the Beatles, only because the Rolling Stones were completely talentless douches.

[hellviewxx]

Even though they were both good bands...the beatles were a little more innovative

[tomasinho]

The beatles were much better.

[TOOL9]

I pick the Beatles, only because the Rolling Stones were completely talentless douches.

yea man i agree, ive always found the rollings stones to be overrated

[the yeag]

fuck the Beatles!!!!!!!

[Dutch Pimp]

The Beatles, I guess.

Just prefer it, even if Sympathy For The Devil is possibly the best track ever recorded.

...'sympathy for the devil"-Beggar's Banquet album 1968....young men went to war ...with that music...to fight the devil....

..nobody mentioned the Beatles....

[yoda]

i voted beatles. im just not a stones fan at all. beatles may have a poppy sound, but i atleast still like it. plus they went experimental.

[higher4hockey]

the stones, hands down.

[tom_mate]

Why would you compare the two? They're totally different, both great bands but different styles and great for different reasons.

[Lido]

"Let it Bleed" great album....one of my favs. The Stones played in my home town......anyone heard of 'Manning Bowl' fucking riot broke out.

[Breukelen advocaat]

The Beatles were much better, IMO. There earliest stuff was kind of sketchy, but they started getting really good in the mid-60's, after they were well-established. I still enjoy albums like Beatles '65, Rubber Soul, Yesterday and Today, the White Album, and Abbey Road. All of their abumls have someting worthwhile. They started out copying other people, and eventually everybody was copying them - their music was heard universally. I hear bands on the radio and TV today that are trying to capture their sound.

[Dutch Pimp]

:rastasmoke:
fuck the Beatles!!!!!!!

...did you vote twice?...:rastasmoke: