Beatles or Rolling Stones

False choice Dan, the Beach Boys, the Who and even the Kinks were better than the Stones. They made a big splash in the sixties and have toured decade after decade but their best songs aren't really of Beatle status or as numerous.

Beatles or Rolling Stones....hmnnn. The beatles were the first to start the rock era but they certainly won't be the last. They were the Fathers of what eventually became "Rock" The first band to rent an outdoor stadium and sell it out NY I believe. Beatlemania was a phenomena that swept the whole world.
Beatles or Stones? Got to go with the beatles myself

I tihn kthe likes of buddy holly, eddie cochrane, big boppa, elvis etc were about before the beatles to give rock its first taste not the fab4.

Beatlemania was nothing more than hype, kids would have loved them jus because they had such a big name, they were everywhere, music on the radio and nice looking guys ( apart from ringo),
BUt
I love the bealtes and also the stones frm the 60's and 70's

So to choose between one just is not going to happen with me.

Ken

the rolling stones have a good feel to their music but id have to say the beatles

Beatles or Stones?  Well lets look at it from a musician's point of view, the Beatles actually wrote songs almost always perfectly! What I mean by that is, it had a begining a bridge and an ending! the only flaw that the early Beatles had was they had 2 rythmn guitarist and back then it was not unusual! Now the stones had alittle better drummer and although some people may disagree but Keith Richards is hands down a better guitarist! But their best musician Mick Taylor left the band and personally he is head and tails above Ron Wood! Who by the way is ten times the bass player than he is a guitarist! But song wise, The Beatles! Straight rock and roll and blues the stones! It's almost like comparing oranges and apples!

I think the Beatles songs were "prettier" than the Stones. Contrarily, I think the Stones songs were/are "funner" than the Beatles. The Beatles vocal harmonies far outrate the Stones but Mick's energy and stage presence far outrate the Beatles. I believe George Harrison's soloing was superior to any Stones soloer(Richards,Jones, Wood) but Charlie Watt's grooves on the drums were several notches above Ringo or Paul's chops.(Paul played drums on many Beatle's studio tracks). Given all the afore mentioned factors I conclude this; It's a tie !!!!!!!

Beatles, always!

It all started in the SIXTIES, Beatles even end 50ties, 1957 to be precisely, when a guy named Lennon started the quarrymen. From one thing came another, first Paul (GUITAR!!) and his buddy George Harisson. They had TOMMY MOORE & later PETE BEST as drummer and finally they kept RINGO, because he was more advanced. Other members: STU SUTCLIFF Bass guitar and JOHN, PAUL, GEORGE on guitar. Finally they thanked  Pete Best for his services (didn't fit in the "managers" profile. Lot of law suits, but when the serie ANTHOLOGY came on the market, BEST received quit a lot of "legal" money, because in a few songs HE played, and 30 years later he got his share. Some people say that he was more popular, followed by frictions, and he couldn't drum because of not being able to keep time.
ROLLING STONES: more or less very similar in the beginning, they both played the rock and roll, discovered in England by sailors, bringing a lot of albums from the USA. At that time BLUES & ROCK and ROLL, where played by a minority, Afro Americans and a lot of US citizens didn't even know what that music was: dark, diabolic, not done. The original line up: Brian Jones (band leader, Mic on the mic, "Kieff" Ricahards, Bill Wyman, and Charlie Watts. They had another member: Ian Stuart, kicked out of the group because "too ugly", but playing every concert and in studio, until he died.
WHO IS BETTER?
The Beatles changed the music, for ever, AND knowing that the Stones started in 1962, they had already more fame. As I wrote, they both started with R&R, like "Twist and Shout" and John always claiming that he was "petrified" when he listened to Elvis, oops, he did it again. But they started almost immediatly writing own songs, like "Please, Please me", "Love me Do", in 1962, the year the Stones started, and wearing a stamp on their faces, that they were like a rebel. Who remembers the nice suits the Beatles were wearing in the beginning.
But about who is the best? It was like a competion: FOR or AGAINST, and you have to admit, that even the Stones writing beautiful ballads like "ruby tuesday", "lady Jane"their music staid real close for years, even decades, to blues and R&R, while the Beatles starting with 3 chjords songs evolved to a group composing in fact more and more complicated songs. I have a book: "the evolution of the sound of the Beatles". What they did 40 years ago, recording an entire album in 1 week, now groups record in 1 year, was incredible.
In fact, the question Beatles versus Stones, who is the best? is a retorical question. I was once a die hard fan: "deep purple", "pink floyd", "led zeppelin", but in fact ONLY ONE THING MATTERS: DO YOU LIKE THE SONGS?
But if you want to see who wrote what, in the Beatles, I give you the following link:
http: // en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles. (Google: the Beatles: wikipedia, and one of the last lines is the DISCOGRAPHY like list of Beatles songs by singer.
Also check out the songs the Beatles gave away.
______________________________________________________________________________

GITAARDOCPHIL SAIS: BEAT THE STONES (with a long answer)
In fact they started both playing R&R, but the Beatles were absolutely the number one in writing their own stuff. The Stones started later, playing own songs. (they had another member

Stones, I'm a beatle burnout about every radio station in southern California has breakfast with the beatles on sunday morning (I know I should be in church). Jimmy Reed was an influence of the stones and you can hear it in there early stuff. Musicianship wise I would also have to choose the stones and I don't like them that much.

Bootlegger.