Whos Better?

Beatles.

Stones.

Fine, so their most recent tune that I like as much as their older stuff is Undercover of the Night or Waiting on a Friend and they're from the 80's (not that Ringo, McCartney or Harrison did anything as good as their seminal work either), but what great tunes they had during the 60's and 70's.

Paint it Black, Sympathy for the Devil, Brown Sugar, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Mother's Little Helper, Only Rock'n'Roll, Street Fightin' Man, Little Red Rooster, Under my thumb, Satisfaction, Honky Tonk Women, Start me up, etc. All brilliant and timeless.

The Beatles are great too though. I especially like Sgt. Pepper's, the White Album, The Magical Mystery Tour, and Revolver myself.

Led Zeppelin, Van Morrison, The Kinks, The Who, and Velvet Underground deserve a mention too as great rock pioneers of the 60's and 70's.

Wow. Good question. Well let's see... even tho the Stones have more kickin' tracks, the Beatles have been far more influential to the masses. Let's face it, music today would be far different without the Beatles in our world... but how different would it be without the Stones?

So here:

Who's better? The Rolling Stones

Who's more important? The Beatles

Who's the worst? Abba

Who's the boss of you? ME! I'm the boss of you.

The Stones, without a doubt.

THOU SHALT NOT DISS ABBA.

I'll break you in half like the twig you are.

It's really hard to compare, they're a lot different.

Best Rock and Roll : Stones
Best Pop : Beatles

Richards and Brian Jones > * . Jagger was too poppy for my likings, they were R & B to the core.

Stones, only because I usually prefer their genre. As matrixhacker noted, they're of a different genre, and both are amazing. The Beatles seem to have a bigger name and reputation, but that usually goes with the pop scene.

The Beatles. Long live Ringo!

Stones without a doubt. My favorite band period.

The Rolling Stones. End of story.

The beatles were popular for about seven years. In those seven years, they had more number one hits, and more impact on popular culture than any other group to date, including the rolling stones. The stones have been around for about 40 years or so and havent even come close to the beatles success. The stones are a great band for sure, but the Beatles are the best:o

The commercial success of a band does not dictate whether it is great or not.

I like the Stones a little bit more, but the Beatles are the Beatles.

Oh, come on now Dancing Queen.... you know I have a sword.:D

You know, that sword probably couldn't cut butter.


And besides, like you'd get the chance to use it. Peeeshaw.

Um....Actually it does. See a band becomes popular by appealing to the masses. The more people who think the band is "great" the more: records they will sell, venues they will fill, influence they will have. Thus, the more commercial success a band had, the more people there are who thought they were "great."

/sigh

This is kind of the wrong argument, as I said before.

It feels like you're asking us to choose between your mother or your father, and which one you love best :P.

So the fact that Britney Spears' first album went platinum over 13 times makes her greater than... say... nearly anyone?

Uh, ok. I'll keep that in mind.

No, there are plenty of people who have sold more than 13 million records.

It means she was great at what she did at the time...singing. Obviously five years ago, people thought she was great at singing. Greater than say "lil kim" or others at that time. The Beatles were great at what they did, playing in a band and making music together.

Darkside of the Moon's sales DWARF Britney's album sales.

Not "The Wall" though

Haven't listened to either one much, so can't really say.

Led Zeppelin.

Your point?

Hell ****ing yes.;)


Aside from Zeppelin, the Beatles come second on my favourites list. I just love the quality and originality and meaning they put into their songs. I love them.

Beatles > Stones

Springsteen.

That's kind of ridiculous. First of all, Britney Spears cannot sing. You can't convince me her voice is actually good or that she has any talent other than being gorgeous. Second, 13 million copies.. that makes it better than Nirvana's Nevermind, which sold 10 million copies, Pearl Jam's Ten, which sold 11 million copies.. as said early, pretty much anything.

And I bet if a band's not on a major label its because they aren't good enough to be on one?

I didn't know Britney was gorgeous. I knew about the airbrushing and heavy use of makeup... but not the gorgeousness.

And look... it did that in a period of like 10 months. That really isn't too bad. Don't start bringing up albums from 30 years ago, because it's really not too fair of a comparison. My point is, sales mean nothing, and I think the Stones made much better music.

Too bad the Stones are horrible live these days...

fair enough.

Darkside of the Moon was on the charts FOREVER, it sold way more than Britney EVER did, and at a much quicker rate.

Darkside of the Moon also happens to be one of the greatest albums EVER. Coincidence?

In terms of the Beatles and the Stones, the sales do mean something. Its not like comparing Zeppelin to Britney Spears, these were both two rock and roll bands, that came out of England in the early sixties. You may think that the Stones are better, but there are plenty more people who like the Beatles better, just look at record sales of the last 40 years. Also, in 1963 when the Beatles had a record contract and the Stones were still playing in clubs and they went to record a few of their songs, Mick and Kieth asked Paul and John if they had a song they would be able to used. The Beatles gave them "I wanna be your man." This became their first hit song and changed their style of music. Mick even said himself that this song changed the direction the band decided to take with their music.

Also...there are more people who would rather see ONE member of the Beatles than the Stones together as evidenced by concert sales in the last 4-5 years.