Who's better the Beatles or the Rolling Stones

[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.