Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[oDoUoSoKo]

the ridiculous amount of range the beatles showed over the stones is enough to make this thread a joke

youve yet to prove that...go passed the 60s eloels.

[The Hound]

Stones. Beatles were more simplistic with their music and if it wasn't for the fact that they were different than anyone else at the time and that every 14 year old girl on the planet wanted to fuck them, nobody would even consider regarding them in the same category as the rolling stones.

^^ Hasn't heard Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

I was never a fan of the Stones and always found them to be quite overrated. Beatles by a long shot.

[Dr. Simon Hurt]

really the comparison is ridiculous considering the amount of (classic) material that the stones produced after the beatles disbanded; are you going to then add in john lennon's solo material and wings to balance it out? because that would drag down the overall rating of the beatles' discography...also, if you are comparing overall careers are you going to overlook the beatles period as a glorified cover band and the numerous bland pop albums they made? the psychedelic/experimental albums are only a handful...i swear it's like alot of people just like the beatles and rate them so highly because they've been conditioned to.

[BGS]

the beatles because my father always played them in the car when i was a child...and i don't like the stones...

[INF]

Thats dope how the stones just keep gigging but I still voted against them though.

[oDoUoSoKo]

smh^^ eloels, welcome back btw..seems like u been out for a while