Lots of folks will disagree but I have a huge stack of stones and one lonley beatles cd.

Beatles up to (but not including) Sgt. Pepper.

Stones from '66 through '72.

However, though both certainly deserved fame and fortune, neither is quite worthy of the extreme adulation they both recieved.

Here's the best:



UPDATE:

Beatles became "fluff" with Sgt. Pepper.



Stones became "fluff" when Mick Taylor left the band.



Not only was I "there" at the beginning of their rivalry, I was also "there" to see almost all the great acts from whom both of these English imitators stole.

Musically both groups are/were unique, vibrant and very much catalysts of change in an era that not only thrived but insisted on it. Overall however, I think they have really only one thing in common; both were significant parts of the British Invasion. The Beatles had an edge but were cut from a finer though still comfortable cloth. The Stones are your basic rough denim. The time and the place for both depend on the mood. When I want to relax or wax nostalgic it’s the Beatles. When I’m feeling rebellious or ticked off – the Stones. All things considered I have a deeper respect for The Beatles - but actually play the Stones more often. For me this isn’t a comparison of talent but of states of mind.

I think the Beatles had a bit more fluff, but I've also always thought that the tracks that mattered remain some of the greatest music of any era. Still, I think that people will be listening to both bands long after I'm dead.

Five stars reflects the quality of the debate around this one, not a stated preferance for one over the other. This is the Boxers vs. Briefs of music, it will never be resolved.

The Beatles have to rate high for originality, versatility, quality of craft, cultural impact and damn enjoyable records. They broke ground that everyone, especially the Stones, were able to travel on. They were greeted with the most incredible success ever experienced by a popular music act but instead of just riding it to the bank, they used it as artistic springboard to push limits and expose their audience to music that they would never in their lifetime have come across.

The Stones score for a song book that pound for pound contains more classics of the Rock and Roll canon than Chuck Berry, and that's saying a lot. The Stones have mined the blues, soul, psychedlia, folk, country and even disco and struck gold with each. They have also survived against all their best efforts to do themselves in. There's an integrity to that that can only come with almost 50 years of playing for the love of music.

Impossible choice for me, fortunately I live in a world where I can enjoy both.

Honda vs Harley. Anyone vs Duane Allman.

Stones...BITCH!

Tough call indeed, particularly if one examines the respective bodies of work up until the time of the Beatles's breakup. I like both, and if I had to give anyone a slight edge it might be the Stones because their early work has generally aged better than that of the Beatles.

The Return of the Revenge of the Curse of the Son of the Mummy's Tour that the Stones have been engaged in for the last two decades counts against them in my eyes, and I sometimes find myself relieved that the Beatles broke up, Hendrix, Morrison, and Joplin died. Had they not we would certainly be faced with Jimi headlining at Caesar's in Vegas, Morrison doing his 93rd farewell tour, Janis doing Southern Comfort commercials, or the Beatles performing at Obama's inauguration.

Wow. Tough one.

Any reasoned music fan on this sight can offer a solid reason for one or the other. Both bands have had moments of greatness. . .both have had moments that make their die-hard fans cringe.

But the Beatles broke up long before they became the commercial embarrassment like the last-ten-years incarnation of the Stones. The Stones did the Super Bowl halftime show sponsored by a mortgage company. Artistic death. The Beatles never quite sold out to that extent. . .I'll take the Bugs.

I will always take the Stones over the Beatles. Better songwriters and better musicians. For the most part, Beatles were studio magic.

I couldn't choose between Paul and Mick. I listen to the Stones now, but I will also listen to the Beatles. They both have talent. Who would have thought they would still be performing the Stones. I think it's great. I have to be mature now and like Keith Richards now. No, I am kidding.

Always been a Stones fan, although I will give credit to the Beatles for paving the way.

Stones...hands down.
While the Beatles made some great music, I am not and never was particularly a fan.
First of all, though it was not their fault, they owe much of their early popularity to racism. Parents did not like Elvis in the mid-to-late fifties. While he was white, he "acted black". When he was inducted into the US Army, his absence left a mega-star void that was filled, primarily, by Motown music. For many white parents, that was worse than Elvis.
Welcome the white boys from England. They didn't move on stage and the strongest sexual overtone was "I wanna hold your hand". Again, elements of racism in the US cannot be blamed on the Beatles; but that provided a huge platform for their popularity. Further, throughout the 60's and early 70's, they seemed to constantly reinvent themselves.
Conversely, the Stones made better music overall and were always just....the Rolling Stones.

I'm not a fan of either, although I'll give the edge to the Stones, as I blame the Beatles for the success of later boybands such as New Kids on the Block, Backstreet Boys, N'Sync, and so on. The Beatles were a boyband. Sure they may have been more talented than later boybands, but they were still just a boyband.