wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

i think everybody's missing the main point, namely that the beatles are the voice and sound of the sixties. The stones are rock. the beatles are psychedelic. There's a magic in their sound which nobody has ever been able to duplicate. The bottom line in my book is that when you listen to the beatles you get all sorts of fantastic visual images. they take you to another place and time-another dimension.

Nobody else comes close to duplicating that, including the stones.

The stones are rock. the beatles are magic. take your pick.

rolling stones.

to me both bands are great, but musically the Stones are better because they had Brian Jones and he's able to play any instrument and he was able to change the style of the band and they had Keith Richards with his tasty licks, but songwriting and singing it was the Beatles, they also sowed the seeds of future sub genres of rock and pop(psychedelic on love you to and within you and with out you, hard rock and heavy metal on helter skelter and yer blues, and acoustic ballads on Michelle and yesterday) but if i had to choose between bands i say the Beatles.The Stones were better than the Beatles when they had Brian Jones and after he died their mid 70s, mid 80 and after albums started to fall out of success.

The beatles are better however Pink Floyd are a hundred times better than The Beatles and Rolling Stones put together. (Rolling Stones are Silly).

So,only I can say i that The Rolling Stones i the best Rock band ever.

Man If John and George would still be with us I it would be great to hear the Beatles performing today. Has anyone ever heard Mick Jagger really play a guitar or piano really well? Yeal he blows the harmonica and thats all I ever seen. I think John,George, and Paul are all better guitar players than Keith Richards. How come the best guitar playing always came from Jones and then Taylor and then Ron Wood. I would like to hear Richards do the guitar work on Abbey Road lp. Folks it wouldn't have made the album better. I don't buy for a second that the Stones were better musicians than the Beatles.

It's nothing more than a question of musical taste! Sure, rubber Soul, revolver, Sgt Pepper, Abbey Road and the white album are undeniable masterpieces. But you know what? So are Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Exile On Main Street, Out of Our Heads, Sticky Fingers and December's Children!

The Stones were certainly more influential. They were a huge influence on later great rock bands like Aerosmith, Guns N Roses, AC/DC and many others. They also successfully captured the spirit of rock and roll, which the Beatles completely failed to do.

If someone can find me another band with anything akin to beatlemania then I will concede that The Beatles are not the greatest band of all time.
Although The Stones are a close second.

I loke a lot of the songs by the rolling stones like satisfaction, brown sugar, and angie, but i just can't choose the rolling stones over The Beatles. It's just their music and their style of everything they do and have ever done is just amazing. I love The Beatles

Beatles = pop-rock band
Rolling Stones = rock-blues-country band

It all depends on what style you like the most.
But, since in live concerts Stones was (and are) by far better than Beatles, i'll go with the greatest rock 'n roll band in the world.

Beatles fans often will point out the chord structure of their songs were complex while that of the Stones were basically simple. This is used as an argument for saying the Beatles were superior to the Stones. But there are other considerations when comparing the two groups. I would start with that the Beatles had no one within a galaxy of Brian Jones as a musician. In a recent bio of John Lennon the author (Spitz or Norman, I can't remember) said Jones "was an instinctive musical genius who had command of a wide array of instruments." He said George Harrison's playing of the sitar was ploddy and cumbersome compared to Jones use of the same and that Lennon was in awe of Jones musical talent in those early days. I have read although I have not verified myself that while the Beatles were innovative in their use of instruments they did not play most of them. Not so with the Stones as Jones was able to handle almost any instrument. Many years ago I read Jones could master an instrument within a week. Further, until the late 70's I had read several times that Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman comprised rock's greatest rhythm section. And for Beatles fans to say Ringo Starr is a better drummer than Watts is pure fantasy. Starr was a basic drummer who did not contribute much to the Beatles greatness. Watts, not only in his relation to Wyman's playing, also was integral to the Stones due to his jazz background. Just listen to Sticky Fingers to get an idea of Watts greatness. Finally, as everyone on Soundcheck agreed on, the Stones had it on the Beatles in terms of guitar work, especially when one considers the work of Mick Taylor. It seems clear the Stones were better instrumentally than the Beatles. When one listens to Backstreet Girl off of Flowers the interplay of the accordian, percussion, and acoustic guitar produces a beautiful song the likes of which the Stones rarely recieve credit for.

Beatles= 1 billion
Stones= 200 million

The Rolling Stone Best Album: Sgt. Pepper- #1

Exile on Main Street- #7

Top Ten: Beatles- 4
Stones- 1
What are you gonna do Mick? You can't do anything! Beatles are the best.

Helter Skelter;
Gimme Shelter!

Unquestionably the Beatles were very lucky to have come along when they did. When John F Kennedy was murdered a gaping hole was torn in the psyche of the American public. Further the unquestioning innocence Americans had for their govt was greatly shaken when soon after the assassination it became highly likely a conspiracy had been at work. Within a year along come the Beatles with their mop top haircuts, their jackets and ties, their cuddly demeanor and their innocent songs. The timing couldn't have been more perfect. Plus Lennon and McCartney had been playing together for some years so they're song writing skills were polished. The American public needed badly the innocence of the Beatles and when the hits started coming the result was a tidal wave of popularity and media coverage. They were the new Elvis. This initial surge of popularity probably explains why the Beatles could have six of the top ten selling singles at one point, something they never came close to again to my knowledge. Unlike the Rolling Stones the Beatles never did anything to alienate the public or even portions of the public. This perfect fit of the Beatles with America created advantages for the Beatles which they enjoy to this day, one of which is the preferential treatment they receive in rock station air play of their songs (and with light music stations as well). There are a number of great rolling Stones songs which demonstrate their ability to make varied songs that never receive radido air play. I do not think Beatles fans are aware of this when they evaluate the Stones material. All of this is not to say the Beatles weren't immensely talented, they were of course but they benefited enormously from the timing of their arrival and their willingness to put forth an image that the American public badly needed to have.

all of you guys are argueing over nothing. The beatles for one had 27 number one hits during 1964-1969. the rolling stones had 13 number one hits between the U.K and the U.S record charts. and if you havent heard the news there is a beatles rockband out there and i dont see a Rolling stones rockband coming out anytime soon unless they pull out another 13 #1 hits out of theie butts. i like one rolling stone stone fan, but since i am only thirteen and live in a pathetic town of pueblo i cant really settle this problem. people always say that if you love the beatles you are most likely not going to like the rolling stones as much. vice-versa.

beatles will never be topped. the rolling stones are good but not even in the top 10.

I never heard much of the Stones' sound, but after hearing the Beatles my mind was made up. The Beatles are the greatest. The Who, Kinks, Stones they all sound generic and overdone; the Fab Four evolved, they grew and the innovated. You can't call the Beatles' music dated when you can still release an album with all your classic songs and it goes straight to number 1. Comparing the Beatles with the Stones, or any other band for that matter, is like comparing Michael Jackson to Usher Raymond: a downright insult!

Some Beatles fans have a kind of smugness and are misinformed regarding the Rolling Stones. Its as if they are not really familiar with all of the material of the Stones. These fans often characterize the Stones as one dimensional not realizing the Stones crossed a broad spectrum ranging from Gimme Shelter to Angie. They could produce great songs in various genres including hard rock (Brown Sugar), ballads (As Tears Go By), psychedelia (2000 Light Years From Home), country (Wild Horses), orchestral (She's A Rainbow), jazz (Melody), and disco (Miss You). Satisfaction is often regarded as the best rock song ever by many commentators (including, I believe, Art Garfunkel but Tom Petty said Jumpin Jack Flash was the best three minutes of rock music ever). The idea that the Beatles are a phenom and that without them the Stones would have been a small success doesn't hold water in light of the innumerable great songs the Stones produced.. If the Stones had come along first in 1963 and were willing to play the game of mop top haircuts and a cuddly image they may very well have had the smashing impact the Beatles had. MSNBC has a web site where the author ranks the top ten bands of all time. He says the Beatles are first, being the best and the most important. The Stones are second but he says by 1970 even had the Beatles not broken up the Stones were challenging them for greatest band in the world, a position they strengthened in 1972 with the release of the great Exile on Main Street. One thing which is very important to respect the Beatles for and this is that John Lennon stood for peace, George Harrison was a spiritual man, and Paul McCartney stands for animal rights. The Rolling Stones have no spiritual or social justice inclinations. If there is one group to challenge either it is not The Who, or Led Zeppelin. I would offer U2 who have now put out thirteen albums of fresh material, are very diversified, have innumerable great songs (many of which never receive radio air play) and evoke depth of feeling the Beatles or Stones could never come close to. When it comes to social justice and spiritual themes their songs contain a depth of meaning the Beatles could not come close to and the Stones, Led Zeppelin, and Who have little or none of. There are many things I would like to say that space does not allow here but in the end I would say the Beatles were the better of the two because they were somewhat more prolific and highly original. But the Stones should be considered as worthy challengers as they were easily superior to the Beatles in hard rock and were a much better live act.

this is a joke, i like the Beatles But, after Satanic Majestes, The Stones made 4 of the greatest rock lps ever, mixing rock, blues r n b and country. and to the guy who said Goats Head Soup was no good, listen to the tracks my friend, Mick Taylor was untouchable.

The Rolling Stones are far more talented than the Beatles. In addition the Stones didn't jump ship on their fans.

"The Beatles weren't very good at doing sex," writes someone here. This is so dumb it's actually interesting. "Why Don't We Do It in the Road." "Come Together" with its sex noises. "Lovely Rita" with its shocking cross-gender images (very shocking for 1967, pretty shocking now). "Please Please Me" which is sheer unadulterated sex in the back of a Liverpool cinema. "I Want You." Etc., etc. Also, John was not one of the bullied boys in the back of the class. He was the class leader in every class he was ever in, cool, aloof, spectacular looking in his day.

Three comments:

1. The remarks by Rich From Australia about the Beatles are the stupidest critique I've ever read, and I've read a lot of 'em.

2. As any number of people have pointed out over the years, the Beatles cracked open the global market for British bands singlehandedly, making it possible for the Stones to take the left-wing, we're-the-nasty-guys approach. Without the Beatles, Mick Jagger today is a semi-succesful theatrical impresario in the West End, and Keith Richards is on the dole in a sleazy hotel in Manchester.

3. Why do I need to choose? I love 'em both. I thank God that I was 10 years old in 1965, young enough for both bands to hit me right between the eyes, with fresh music from both of 'em coming out every month, free of charge on the radio, saturating the whole world. That fact has made all the difference in my life.

The Beatles without any doubt with 1 billion sales and rolling stones with 200 million way behind Beatles r biggest musical act ever after Elvis and before MJ!

(Rich from Australia): Beatles can't write Gimme Shelter, etc.. ??? Give me a break. Who wants to anyways. Have you listened to the structure and melodies of some of these song (eg: You can't always get what you want). Repetitive and boring. Same tune over and over from beginning to end. Listen and analyse some of the other Stones song you listed. Simple melody repeated verse after verse. Nothing complicated. Lennon/McCartney would consider these songs throw-aways.

Now tell me which Stones song compares to masterpieces such as Hey Jude, Strawberry Fields, Day in a Life, In My Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, Eleanor Rigby, While my Guitar Gently Weep, etc..etc..and tons of others. Can't right? Now you know why many musicians and critics regard Lennon/McCartney as the greatest songwriter of the 20th century.

Studio Band: Beatles
Live Band: Stones
Rock 'n Roll spirit overall: Stones #1.

The time when beatles disbanded the stones were nothing comparable to beatles , the beatles made their legacy in just some what 8 years and the stones did in 40 years .......
and talking about present beatles were the second best selling artist of decade of 2000's
after the 40 years of seperation of band ...
so who is the best no unquestionably THE BEATLES......for ever..
but STONES have the second position secured for ever

Stupid comparison. Stones retread the same style and tunes over and over again. Melody uninteresting and repetitive.
Beatles = unmatch in melodies, tune, variety, innovation. Beatles win - no contest.

The Rolling Stones are the Greatest Rock Band in the world for a number of reasons: The Stones have dozens of top 40 hit songs- a record number of consecutive # 1 albums- best selling rock DVD ever (Four Flicks sold x 10 platinum) The Stones are the most enduring band- They have have garnered more publicity than any other rock band, and the Rolling Stones are the most successful touring band of all-time (A Bigger Bang alone made $550,000,000,). Critics tend to over-look that incredible feat!
I consider the Beatles to be a great pop group. Yes, The Beatles sold tons of records too, but the Stones music is still current. The Beatles music is somewhat dated.

Rolling Stones are the greatest band in the history of music.

Daylight second.

Beatles couldn't write Gimme Shelter, You cant Always Get What You Want, Moonlight Mile, Midnight Rambler, Sympathy For The Devil, Wild Horses, Under My Thumb, Jumpin Jack Flash, Undercover, Saint Of Me, Miss You, Rough Justice & 100+ other Stones masterpieces to save their lives.

Beatles did have that wonderful popular bubblegum pop hands down though. A good 60's band. Gotta love those mummys matching clothes & hairdo's.

Stones still unmatched & unsurpassed to this day & will continue to be.

I can remember back in mid 60’s growing up in East NY we were glued to the TV with my extended family brothers, sisters and friends watching the Clay Cole Show & Ed Sullivan Show. I think since the Stones acted and sound black while the Beatles acted and sound so vanilla we all wanted to more Stones and less Beatle mania. I felt back then (60-70s) the man was forcing the Beatle on me, while the Stones just grew on me naturally.

I like/enjoy both The Beatles & Stones
but I found that the narative didn't hit the mark. Was "Why Don't We Do It In The Road" Not Sexy (like Mike) or was "Beast Of Burden" not "intellecticual enough ??
But further more the Greatest Perfoming Band EVER wasn't the Who (I saw @ Filmore East 1970 !!) but was The Grateful
Dead. Sayz I

Beatles Beachboys is better comp stones can't sing

Is this even really a question? Do people argue about this? I mean, it's obviously the Beatles, right? There's no argument.

Well, the playlist anyway is seriously slanted towards the Beatles, not only in number of songs per band but in quality of Stones tunes. Any playlist of the Stones that leaves out Honky Tonk Women, Wild Horses, Ruby Tuesday and Tumbling Dice is not worthy of its subject.

This is purely a Western concept, choosing the absolute "best" of anything. Eastern philosophies allowed a "both/and" perspective rather than our "either/or." AND there it is... the Beatles opened minds to other philosophies. While some Beatle fans prefer "A Hard Day's Night" and the early rock'n'roll, others like the "folkie" stuff like the US version of Rubber Soul, "Yesterday," etc. But as a "Revolver" fan, I appreciate ALL the Beatles' styles and genres. The Stones attempted this variety but in the end retreated to guitar rock. Damn good, but more limited in scope and ultimately repetiitve.

I don't know one person who only likes one of the two bands.

The Beatles were by far the better band. And for all his "jazz inspired, to cool for the room" BS, Ringo Starr is a better drummer that Charlie Watts. The Stones are a GREAT band, no doubt; but the Beatles changed music and media in general. Also, you always got the impression that the Beatles could do Stones type music anytime they chose, but the Stones failed miserably when trying to emulate the Beatles, such as the mess that was Satanic Majesty. The Stones were a real good garage grunge band, pure grindhouse rock n roll. The Beatles music changed from album to album in 6 1/2 all to short years. They were simply brilliant and 300 years from now, people will still be listening and speaking about how great the Beatles were. Lastly, to the Led Zep fan ( I love Led Zep!), let me quote Robert Plant:
"We reached their greatness once, in my opinion. Stairway To Heaven is as good as any record ever made. But the Beatles were able to do it on a regular basis."

Sonny Crockett

"The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones"?

That is the sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

The Beatles were by far the better band. And for all his "jazz inspired, to cool for the room" BS, Ringo Starr is a better drummer that Charlie Watts. The Stones are a GREAT band, no doubt; but the Beatles changed music and media in general. Also, you always got the impression that the Beatles could do Stones type music anytime they chose, but the Stones failed miserably when trying to emulate the Beatles, such as the mess that was Satanic Majesty. The Stones were a real good garage grunge band, pure grindhouse rock n roll. The Beatles music changed from album to album in 6 1/2 all to short years. They were simply brilliant and 300 years from now, people will still be listening and speaking about how great the Beatles were. Lastly, to the Led Zep fan ( I love Led Zep!), let me quote Robert Plant:
"We reached their greatness once, in my opinion. Stairway To Heaven is as good as any record ever made. But the Beatles were able to do it on a regular basis."

Sonny Crockett

The Beatles were simply rock for the masses. ABC rock. Soft rock. Their cords were very basic. Although they used much layering in the studio they still were not really edgy other than being the first big part of the British age of Rock n Roll.

The Stones on the other hand really changed it up and brought segregated radio in to a tizzy by producing black inspired music that sometimes sounded black. They were the edge in those days.

Remember, white stations would not really play Stones music till almost the 70's when radio was relaxing their play list because of the disco error. Besides the Beatles did not play well on black radio because to black folk any covers that they did reminded black folk of all of those stolen songs sung by white artist that black artist were not credited for (Ricky Nelson, Elvis Presley)

Oh great let's listen to a bunch of old time crap now

SCHAEFER VS. LIANNE FROM NPR

The Beatles were the leaders but when Keith started writing in open G tuning the Stones hit their stride and were interesting and great all through the eighties.

MONKEYS VS. PARTRIDGES

You can't say that the Stones were a better live band. The Beatles quit touring before the technology emerged that would have enabled them to perform live without the stupid screaming. ... But Paul McCartney is an amazing performer live, as anyone who has been to one of his recent shows can attest. So I think a case can be made that the Beatles live would have been terrific and compelling, had the technology existed to allow people to hear them. They wouldn't have pranced around like Mick, but then he looks ridiculous now prancing around at his age.

"The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones"?

That is the sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

This seems a worthy smackdown if the number posts is any indicator.

I don't get the Stones. Maybe I'm not deep enough. The way I see it one is pop, the Beatles and the other is something else maybe something more gritty and authentic.

STUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPID

let it be is not the last album

"Which was the better band?"
SInce you didn't say "rock band", no question, The Beatles.

And if you go more narrow to rock band, and open it up to more bands, it's The Who over The Stones.

most of the stones guitar tracks are by unknown studio musicians

go ahead play some more crappy trax that prove nothing

Beatles-schmeatles, I LOVE THE STONES!

I don't care if the Beatles were more musically "innovative;" whenever I listen to the Stones I feel ALIVE.

Yes, "Satanic Majesties" is derivative but they followed it with "Beggars Banquet," "Let it Bleed," "Sticky Fingers," and "Exile on Mainstreet." Those surpass any Beatles record for me, and I think "Exile" is the best rock record of all time.

Last weekend my Beatles-fan friend and I had this very debate--we alternated songs, he playing one Beatles song and I countering with a Stones song. I think I won because with the exception of the "Hey Jude" singalong, the Stones were more FUN.

And it might be all about sex, because I think Mick's mouth is still the sexiest thing ever.

Plus Beatles fans are insufferable.

It is no contest. Both bands made great songs but the Beatles changed music.
Listen to a Stones song from 30 years ago and one of their new songs. Sounds like the same group.
Listen to "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" and then any song from their last years. They changed, evolved and weren't afraid to try something new.
The Stones found a sound that sold and they stuck with it.
Beatles were, like all great artists, innovators.

Yes but the stones can still use the bathroom.. Not the beatles. No John

there was a billion people at that recording session...

Most people here have it right. The Stones were a great band, but they were not the Beatles. They didn't change the direction of music with almost every album they made as did the Beatles. If you're not sure the Beatles were a great rock band, go to a Fab Faux concert some time. And as for saving black music for the rest of us, last time I looked, Gordie Berry, Little Richard, Marvin Gay, BB King, Aretha, Patti La Belle, Otis Redding, etc, etc, etc, etc, saved black music for all of us good Caucasian folk. Puhlease.

Your side by side track playing has been stupid so far: I wna be yr man is not of the great songs neither was the last you played.... cmon think a little more.

Most people here have it right. The Stones were a great band, but they were not the Beatles. They didn't change the direction of music with almost every album they made as did the Beatles. If you're not sure the Beatles were a great rock band, go to a Fab Faux concert some time. And as for saving black music for the rest of us, last time I looked, Gordie Berry, Little Richard, Marvin Gay, BB King, Aretha, Patti La Belle, Otis Redding, etc, etc, etc, etc, saved black music for all of us good Caucasian folk. Puhlease,

When the Beatles first were played on the radio I hated them - i thought their songs were infantile and those suits and too neat hair cuts were awful plus all the girls I knew were acting like idiots whenever their songs came on the radio. For me at that time it was the Stones because I saw them and myself as rebels plus parents did not approve of them while even my grandmother liked the Beatles! When I saw the Stones perform on TV Mick had scraggely long hair and a sweatshirt on and believes me no one wore sweathirts as regular attire back then. Of course eventually I fell for the Beatles and I could never choose between them because to me their music is totally different.

Apples and oranges, folks; both are uniquely great. Perhaps one could argue that The Beatles had more sociological impact, (in part because we in the US were made aware of them first) but that's about it.

to say the beatles never wanted to sound black is beyond inane. mccartney does his little richard on countless recordings.

Does this guy realize that Mick's attempts to "sound black" would not necessarily be taken as a positive? How many white rappers are taken seriously in the black community? I can only think of one - the obvious one.

This whole argument is way off-base. The better band is obviously Led Zeppelin.

Two words - Hey Bulldog.

As Keith Richards has said more than once while giving the Beatles full props for their great songwriting, the Stones were and are a far better live band. Even as they enter senior citizenship, they blow away bands a third their age for pure rock and roll audacity.

"The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones"?

That is the sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

The Stones always responded to the innovations the Beatles created. The Stones were great counterpunchers, but the Beatles were the leading the way.

Just a note, Eric Clapton played part of the lead on George Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps"

Beatles, no contest. Range, Melodies, they Rock, they do Ballads they do it all. All members of the band are songwriters on their own.

Apples and oranges: The Beatles wrote GREAT/classic pop music, with incredible innovation, that became increasingly more personal and socially relevant. The Stones, in my mind, epitomize rock n' roll. Their music in the 60's and 70's hold the essence of what is rock n' roll.

I love them both ALOT, totally equal. beatles are brain, stones libido.

Beatles vs. Stones is like cats vs. dogs, and I know a lot of people that love both cats and dogs. I'd rather hear a round robin smackdown pitting the solo Beatles against each other.

Beatles - absolutely!

This track proves The s\tones were better

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okqEVeNqBhc

The Stones, while talented, were one note rockers. The Beatles were artists who changed not only music history, but the whole world. I don't see how you can make any other argument.

STOP.
For the sake of all things living, please stop this silly comparison.

Why can't people acknowledge that both of these bands made music. Some of which you may like, and some you might not like.
So be it.

"The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones"?

That is sort of topic that can only be considered worthy of discussion by a fatuous cretin like John Schaefer!

Beatles: Slicker, sweeter, smarter, more creative and just killer songs. Both insanely talented though.

the start of strwb fields is a mellotron not a guitar

Must read this in regards to Beatles v Stones. http://www.bbgun.org/text/beatles.htm

Record sales aren't everything, of course. And I agree with people who say that your mood determines which band you want to listen to. But I still have to marvel at the Beatles' amazing chart success. Consider just this one statistic: On April 11, 1964, the Beatles had 14 songs inside the Billboard Hot 100 at the same time. FOURTEEN! No one is ever going to match that again.

Are you even serious? The Beatles. The Rolling Stones rock out but they do not have the depth, the impact, the enduring legacy, the political engagement, or the complexity of The Beatles, as a band + as 4 individuals. Long live The Beatles!

And a special hug to John, my hero.

are 12 year olds responsible for soundcheck's programming?

Apples and oranges: The Beatles wrote GREAT/classic pop music, with incredible innovation, that became increasingly more personal and socially relevant. The Stones, in my mind, epitomize rock n' roll. Their music in the 60's and 70's hold the essence of what is rock n' roll.

Who is better - the Beatles or the Stones? A question answered by simply with the following letters:

R-A-M-O-N-E-S

Apples and oranges: The Beatles wrote GREAT/classic pop music that became increasingly more personal and socially relevant. The Stones, in my mind, epitomize rock n' roll. Their music in the 60's and 70's hold the essence of what is rock n' roll.

It is indisputable, that the Beatles had the superior songwriting duo, and that the Rolling Stones were merely trying to catch up. The result was hackneyed songwriting, and a whole lot of posing.

The Kinks.

Apples and oranges. They both have their place and we can not live without either. They have different messages that they are conveying and a different way of rendering those messages. There are different genres within the rock designation and these two bands fall within different sub rock genres. Cheers that we have both of them.

Apples and oranges, folks; both are uniquely great. Perhaps one could argue that The Beatles had more sociological impact, (in part because we in the US were made aware of them first) but that's about it.

They are too different. Depends on your mood, I think.

They are too different. Depends on your mood, I think.

I always liked the Beatles but the Stones were the real rockers, i can't live without both. When I want to rock out I put on the Stones. The Beatles are head music.
I also prefer to play there records then the cd's. Third fav, The Kinks

THE ROLLING STONES ARE FRAUDS! Prep-schoolers who robbed America of its music and made England think they invented the blues. If I wanted to hear another tired song about some old dude's libido I would just listen to that tired hack Iggy Pop.
This is in contrast to the Beatles who internalized American music and helped to innovate it. Working class heroes in the best way possible!

"Would You Shag John?" In a heartbeat, buddy. Although I'd take Paul first because he seems like he'd care as much about showing you a good time as getting off himself. (Mick just seems like he's in it for Mick.) The Stones were the kind of band you think are sexy when you're between 16 and 21 and want a quickie with no strings attached. Might be fun in the moment but you care if it lasts. And you certainly don't want to date that dude.

The Beatles were the kind of band you want to spend a lifetime having great sex with.

It all depends on the mood I'm on.

-The Stones are the best to cure the blues, you have Sweet Virginia, Dead Flowers, Let It Loose, Shine A Light. And yes they're mean and they rock!

- The Beatles are more mellow but I could not live without my White Album, Abbey Road or occasional dose of great Lennon & McCartney tunes.

The depth, breadth, and creativity of The Beatles' catalogue easily surpasses that of The Stones. Plus, I'm going to bash my head into a wall if I hear "Start Me Up" one more time.

C'mon guys,
This is a silly argument and one that should has absolutely no merit. How could one even think that either of these two bands are and were more innovative than the other? Both bands are genius and cannot or should not be compared. Maybe, the argument should be the Monkees vs either of these two? Not Lennon, McCartney vs,Mick and Keith. And only if someone took the side of the Monkees.
I suppose the only innovative difference I see, is that the Stones made music with less chords with most of their tunes and the Beatle's music was more orchestral? No wonder Ian stewart referred to them as "the three chord wonders".Or was it four Bill? I forget
But then you have Rudy Tuesday and She's a Rainbow. Quite orchestral too.So the entire argument is quite silly. Reminds me of when I was a kid and drummers would debate the merits of Ringo vs Charlie or John Bonham and Ginger Baker because of his Toad solo.
I knew better not to even argue this point when I was 12 years old.

Yes, the Stones had the quintessential front man,one who's dick you would suck in a heartbeat even though you were straight. The 1969 until 1975, Mick. And a Rock n Roll pirate guitar player that came up with a trademark sound by letting go of the low E string and tuning his guitar to an open G. Which was the most innovative way of utilizing this tuning since the Mexicans turned on the Hawaiian slide players who then in turn influenced the old blues cats. And how a young gun named Mick Taylor complemented these riffs with the most melodic rock n roll guitar playing of all time. If you don't know it by now, buy the bootleg "The Brussels Affair" 73 is one sure sign that the Stones were the greatest Rock n Roll band of all time..But that's LIVE and because of the uncredited Mick Taylor. And of course Ya ya's
So is the debate about live or accomplishments that were made in the studio? I will concede to the argument if we are talking live performance. You can throw the Beatle's out the or thru the bathroom window. Studio, there is and shall be no argument from this day forward.
No one read music, they played by ear. That is genius, pure and simple.

I will be honest, The Stones have never done it for me. I can see where people get into them and I give them a gentlemanly tip of the hat for their talent and staying power. But... I have to go with the Beatles.

Everyone talks about John and Paul and Ringo (if at least as the comedic relief), no one ever mention poor George. He was talented enough to hold his own with the Traveling Wilburys.

I think the rivalry made them both better, and I think the songwriting skills of the Stones are underrated. Just see all the album tracks that have become classics several years after the release. My vote is for the Stones

From www.thebeatlescompleteonukulele.com

ABOUT THE SONG

Stones, Beatles; Beatles, Stones. Back and forth, cut and thrust, lob and volley, the simple stand-and-deliver question “The Beatles or The Stones?” still rattles cages after a half-century of exposition.

Back in November 1963, the near-simultaneous release of versions of Lennon and McCartney’s “I Wanna Be Your Man” by both groups provided a neat snapshot comparison of where they were at and where they were going.

The Stones “may” be better than The Beatles, just as the Dave "may" spend this summer reclining at his exclusive 97-room palace on his own private island in the company of Kate Winslett, Gizelle Bunchen and Vladimir Putin occasionally dive bombing the beaches of the Cote d'Azur in his fur-lined executive gunship and dining every evening on vintage moose-milk cheese and life-sized replicas of himself sculpted entirely from foie gras.

But what can not be denied that is The Stones version of I Wanna Be Your Man IS better than The Beatles version.

There is a very simple reason for this

The Beatles were not very good at doing sex.

They fumbled and apologized their way through inept bra unfastening while The Stones were practically born with beautiful models dripping off of their androgynous but perfectly formed bodies.

Sex is good and nice and very important and The Beatles were rubbish at it.

Would you shag John?

I don’t think so. What we all want to get close to is confidence and the Stones despite their lack to technique in writing, playing and singing, had in spades. Little Johnny was way too paranoid.

Paranoia is simply not sexy.

Now don’t get me wrong, paranoia has it’s uses. It is an excellent tactic for the powerless. The expression of those conspiracy theories, if you shout them loud enough, puts you at the centre of events and attention thereby giving the paranoiac a type of power and status that can be got by no other means.

Lennon and other bullied boys at the back of the class lived for that kind of thing. But would you want to do that pathetic self image?

Of course some of you would, but millions more would shag The Stones. Any of them. Even Charlie.

The Beatles want you to like them, The Stones don’t care (it’s not accidental that we automatically call Ringo by his first name and Jagger by his second).

The Beatles would soon reveal extraordinary melodic flair, surreal humour and boundary-changing sonic inventiveness, but The Stones would always have elemental dirty elegance on their side. So you’ve got two bands. Two food groups. You can of course create a nutritionally balanced menu from both. Or you can binge on either like a deranged animal until you’re sick. All I’m saying is, this is not a health and safety issue, it’s a quality of life issue. And I’m not a doctor.

I've loved the Beatles since I was 12 years old in 1964. But I love the Stones as well. I know it's not very "smack-down" to say it, but can't I love both?

ha ha! That's funny. The Beatles were a phenomenon, The "Stones" were not.
Sounds like a question from someone who "wasn't there".

Beatles. No contest. What other band produced such a diverse range of music? What other band had multiple lead singers? They made the concept of a band writing and performing its own songs standard for everyone else. They led the way in studio innovation, and in giving artists control over their sound. And their songs today are a part of the culture, globally, to a far far greater degree than the music of any other band.

The Stones have some great songs and they created the sex-and-drugs rock image that so many bands emulated (even though the Beatles in their Hamburg would have put the Stones to shame on that front). But musically, the Stones weren't great innovators. They just successfully anglicized a tried-and-true blues formula.

The Beatles are the best. There the ones that change history. If you went to one of thier concerts you could never hear them because of all of thier screaming fans. They had the most top 10 songs, she loves you, love me do, hey Jude, let it be, strawberry flieds, while my guiter gently weeps, and so on. Plus, the Rolling Stones never made any movies about themselves like the Beatles, Hard Dayys night, 8 arms to hold you a.k.a. HELP!

Beatles and Stones each spoke predominantly to two different ethos of our time: sex and love. The Beatles inspired us to art, poetry, imagination, spirituality, and unity, for me that trumps hard living and sex.

This is like the Yankee's vs. Met's rivalry. I"ll go with the Beatles.. The Stones are talented and innovative but the Beatles explored far beyond the outer edges of music and expression and made it work all so well...

The Beatles and the Rolling Stones are both great bands, and my musical favorites include songs from both groups.

But the Beatles produced Sgt. Pepper's, which is the greatest Rock album ever produced. The Beatles win.

stupid topic

Stones, hands down. Innovative from the beginning and still continue to rock.

As a female music fanatic, it's as simple as this: the Stones and their music were edgy and sexy, and the Beatles were not.

Future smackdown: Sex Pistols v. Clash?
(Pistols hands down).

To me it's the Beatles and there's never been a contest. Besides disliking the Stones for their one dimensional personalities, their sound also remained the same largely, not venturing too far from the blues. The Beatles, by contrast experimented and succeeded with many styles and pushed the whole genre forward forever.

OMG! Does it matter at this point?? We debated it at the time -- and it mattered because both groups were young and making their respective marks on music. Forty plus years later -- with the perspective of time -- the differences fade and the greatness of each remains. Finally since The Beatles disbanded in 1970 (before actually), are restricting the Smackdown to their 1960s output? Hardly seems fair to compare them after that since The Stones continued to create new work.

When I felt good, I listened to The Beatles, and when I felt bad, I listened to The Stones. Good Boys vs Bad.Boys. When the sun was shining, it was The Beatles. When it rained, it was The Stones. Simple!

The Beatles left millions of fans hungering for more when they split. As brilliant as the Rolling Stones and the Who both were, they hung around for too long and produced embarrassingly bad albums from 1974 onwards.

Recap

1. The Beatles
2. The Rolling Stones
3. The Who

The Beatles brought magic, mysticism & lyricism to a time that was ripe for it and needed it. They will always be connected to that time and that's a good thing. but as enduring musicians and each of them, masters of their talent, the Stones have it hands down

All respect to the Beatles however the Rolling Stones are and always will be the definitive rock and roll band. As musicians there is no comparison whatsoever. As songwriters the Stones are far more prolific but most importantly the Beatles affected our heads, the Stones affected where it really counts, our crotches!!!!!

The Beatles never tried any gimmics to win fans, trying best on the other hand to drive away their admirers. No amount of trampling down by rabid critics over past 50 years has even touched the Beatles' proud moptop heads.
Akshay

The practical answer is that the Stones and the other British Invasion bands, whatever their artistic merits, only achieved great success in the US by following in the Beatle's wake. If there had been no Stones, the Beatles still would have been a huge phenomenon, but if there had been no Beatles, most likely the Stones would have been no more than a local success. And I personally favor the Kinks over either of them...

This isn't about which was a better live band, so mentioning the Who is stupid. The Beatles were driven from live performing by that army of screaming girls, so we can't judge whether they were a better live band than the stones or the Who. We'll never know. Can you imagine, today, a band as big as the Beatles actually stopping touring because their fans were getting in the way of the music?

Also, this is a dumb question because the Beatles were obviously more innovative musically, lyrically, all of it. The Stones made some great music, too, but broke little ground.

Finally, John Lennon and Paul McCartney together were magic. Apart, they were both good but together they brought out the best in each other musically and balanced each others' weaknesses.

The greatest band of that era was the WHO, you cannot compare the lyrics and the stage presence of the WHO to any other band. Beatles were over rated and still are. John Lennon was the heart of the band, compare the song simply having a wonderful christmas time to so this is christmas. No talent vs. talent and genius.

But the Who wins hands down.

Go watch The Rolling Stones Rock and Roll Circus (1968) and it's clear that the Stones and the Beatles were both inferior to The Who.

There is really no comparison! not that the Stones are inferior or anything; but they (and almost every other sound), lack the innovation the Beatles had.

the beatles hands down they were the most innovative band in history

I have to go for The Beatles. Even early on, the Stones were promoted as the "Bad Boys." At their early stages, The Beatles were playing 7 hour nightly gigs in nefarious venues in Hamburg, while the Stones were enjoying their middle class life style. This apprenticeship shaped their entire career. The Beatles got the Stones signed (& gave them "I Wanna Be Your Man").
The last great Stones album is from at least 30 years ago, where Paul put out an amazing Fireman record (of which he played all of the instruments) a year ago.
No contest. Beatles rule!

brian the beatles are more fun? what kind of statement is that? and Ringo Starr is a good drummer but charlie watts is better and is not worth pointing out over paul mccartney or John lennon just saying

This is not a serious question. We all know that the obvious, emphatic and undeniable answer is The Beatles. The Beatles are the superior band for the following reasons, among many others:

1) The sold more records.
2) They sell more records today, particularly among individuals born twenty and thirty years after they broke up.
3) They were more innovative. First came Sgt. Pepper's and then the derivative Their Satanic Majesties Request.
4) The Beatles never produced a poor record. Every song on every album is single-worthy. Every album is different from the one that precedes it and the one that follows it. There is a point with the Rolling Stones, however, where their song writing capabilities declined.
5) The Beatles are more fun.
6) A Day in the Life, Strawberry Fields Forever, The White Album, The B-Side medley of Abbey Road, Twist and Shout.
7) Ringo Starr