The Beatles were WAY hotter than the Rolling Stones. Watch John sing "Twist & Shout".

 

I cannot believe this is up for debate - no dobt the Stones play a large role in the development of rock and roll - but the Beatles ARE the Adam and Eve of Rock and Roll. All musicians though they might not even know it are influenced by them. They are part of the tapestry - so interwoven throughout the whole musical community that you might not even know it is them. And thank goodness they are dying so I don't have to be embarrassed of them - and I'm waiting - though not very patiently for YOKO ONO to pass on in peace - THAT'S TERRIBLE!

 

With The Beatles are different than almost any band. In this way: You have to say what songs were not good, instead of what songs are good, because they are all that good.

With the Stones, you don't do that.

 

 

I can't believe the stones are winning this debate!!! Come on people!

 

How many Beatle songs can you name?  Sing along with?  Ok, how many Rolling Stones songs can you name?  Sing along with? 

No further questions, your honor. 

 

Mick Jagger scares me. He's starting to look like Mr. Burns.

 

Some members of the Beatles are named "Sir"

 

The Beatles had the most Number 1-Hits ever. No band, man or woman will ever reach this target. NEVER!

Furthermore, the beatles sang from LOVE to ROCK - the Rollin' Stones just can scream some Rock into their Microphones (except for some too slow songs).

SO, vote for the beatles.

 

with this argument you have UNconvinced me. I know my classic rock pretty well and, frankly, I can only name one or two Stone's albums. I would bet that the average human with a heart beat out there could probably name at least two or three Beatles albums: Sgt. Pepper, The White Album and Abby Road. The Beatles created more timeless, influential, diverse, popular music in their less-than ten years producing music as a band than the Stones have ever...and they still write music (sad as it is).

 

Only eight years of Beatles were more than enough to swallow 30 years of Rolling Stones.

 

The Beatles definitely wrote better songs than the Stones. No question. If the question were rephrased to ask which band's songs rock more, then you might have a more difficult debate.

 

The Beatles, in my opinion are a lot better. The Rolling Stones are close, but The Beatles are in for the win.The Beatles had more of a point to their music, whereas The Stones just made music for the purpose of the sound; not the point and/or meaning.

Music is a form of art, and is meant not only for the sound but the wording to the song to express the feelings of the artist. This is why I chose the Beatles of The Rolling Stones.

 

The ultimate fact is that both are great bands, but one, The Beatles, are a much much better band. John Lennon and Paul McCartney have been the songwriting duo to aspire to. Also according to Rolling Stone Magazine the Beatles own 5 of the top 15 albums of all time while the Rolling Stones have 3 in the top 100. I think this simple fact is enough said.

 

On which side should I stand if I love both Beatles and Rolling Stones? Stand outside of this frame? Anyway... Beatles are little more cute than wild Rolling Stones. Hmmmm

 

beatles began a new wave in music and explored all aspects of their creative juices. rolling stones are excellent but they don't have the range and accomplishments of the beatles

 

The Rolling Stones never changed - all their songs sound the same. Blues Rock.

The Beatles evolved from album to album - revolutionizing music as they went. This is what makes them better.

 

If you had done a little bit of research before making this point, you would know that Brian Jones died in 1969 (well before any Beatles bought the farm). True, he had left the Stones a month before his death, but he had been an important member of the band. And if you count pianist Ian Stewart, who was forced out of the band early on but continued to play on the Stones' albums and tours until 1985, when he stopped because he DIED, then the count is even at two members dead for each band.

But none of this really matters, since most people are probably debating the quality of the music, the legacy, the influence, etc. and not how many band members have died, since, you know, that's not exactly a standard by which bands are measured in any "who's better?" debate.

 

All you need to do is look at the charts... the beatles have the most number one hits of all time.. they are the only band to hold the top 5 spots at one time. The beatles amount of number 1 is also more than the rolling stones and elvis preseley combined. The depth of the albums most also be calculated. The white album, sgt pepper, abbey road, help ,let it be, revolver, rubber soul, these albums all own the stones best album of exile on main street. The stones first hit lastly was written by mccartney and lennon with i wanna be ur man. Lennon/Mccartney will always own richards/jagger. No one can compete

 

I think in terms of influencing every rock band since, the Beatles can have no rival.

Although the Stones are amazing, they have kind of become a caricature of themselves, and although i would love to have a pint with them, I think the Beatles have slightly more depth, in musical terms anyway.

 

How is this a contest?

 

you listen to songs not only because of they're musical quality but also because of their emotional quality. if a musician doesn't have the ability to express his music with the proper emotion, it does not have the same effect. therefore, if john weren't so hot the song would not have been as good. you can feel what john is trying to convey in the song by his performance, making it a better song. would a shakira song have the same feel/fanbase if it were barbara streisand singing it? i don't think so. (not that i like shakira, but she conveys what she sings). the beatles just have way more sex appeal, making them better at rock and roll.

 

Two great bands. But The Beatles by far.
Kids at school are still singing their songs today!
Me and my dad also enjoy playing one of their songs and singing to their lyrics from time to time.

 

The Beatles were so avante garde. Did anyone hear a song about a one night stand before these guys? The mixture of riffs and lyrics were never heard before. The Stones never had a song like "let it be" that helped a generation get through it's toughest times. It's all about giving a voice to a generation.

 

No one i mean NO ONE will ever be big as the beatles they have influence on so many people.
The Rolling Stones even did one of their songs that the beatles wrote for them! the song is "i wanna be your man" the stones even put that song (there version) on an a-side!

 

Lennon-McCartney are the the champion song-writing team. In fact, it was an intoxicated Lennon-McCartney that wrote The Rolling Stones first top 20 hit "I Wanna Be Your Man". If Better Song= Chart Success, then the Beatles would win based on the fact that they had 27 # 1 hits in the span of 8 years. Both bands have standout songs, but the Beatles as song writers were far superior.

 

The "Adam and Eve" of Rock and Roll is definitely not a term I would use to describe the Beatles... HOWEVER you are false in saying that Hendrix floyd and Zep were not influenced by the Beatles in one way or another. All three are influenced by the Psychedelic sound of the Beatles, and Hendrix owed his career to Paul McCartney's promoting him. Hendrix was such a fan of the Beatles that for one of his performances, he opened with "Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band" just a couple weeks after the album came out. The Beatles were Great Songwriters, and if it wasn't for them setting the trend to write your own music, None of the Bands you listed would be what they are today.

Keith Richards was a good guitarist and writer, but skill wise he wasn't better than George and Paul (Maybe john). Brian Jones on the other hand maybe.

And For the record, I need to clarify to everyone the biggest Irony in Rock & Roll; The Beatles good boy image to the Rolling Stones bad boy image. The Beatles were all working class living in liverpool. They wore leather jackets, greased hair, then later long messy hair, swore and smoked on stage. They were real rockers. It was their manager Brian Epstein that molded them into the clean cut boys they would be identified for. The Stones were mostly middle class living in the suburbs of London. It was their manager Andrew Oldham that would mold them to be the opposite of the Beatles. It was the Beatles that climbed out of the mud and the stones that just descended from heaven- they both just had good makeup

 

The exact wording of the question almost caught me out -
Who wrote the best songs?
Although the answer is always subjective this has to be the Beatles. Creative / Studio bound / Technically ahead of their time

If the question was who was the better band ?
Then the Stones - the Beatles generally over thought things - they always lacked the energy of the Stones.

 

first let me say that i love the rolling stones, but the beatles led an era with there music and thats pretty hard to do. This is like asking if KIss is better than Madonna.

[ if you were wondreing kiss is way better than madona]

 

i love the beatles. the rolling stones, in my opinion, suck ass and they are nothing but arrogant stuck up airheads

 

Sure, you can think of this merely in terms of "music"... but go beyond the music and the Stones totally win this category. These guys win the Invincibility points. They can't be killed. They're like roaches. The Beatles, on the other hand, are dying off, one by one...

 

The Stones back catalogue rocks and it's got the blues and it's sad and it's happy and it goes around with the world. The Beatles back catalogue sure has some all time greats in it, but it's burned out. The Stones just let it rip without getting too concerned with history. Sure, it would have been better if the Stones had broken up twenty years ago - but that doesn't take away from the heartbreaking glory of their classic albums. Goats Head Soup. Sticky Fingers. Let it Bleed. Beggars Banquet. Exile on Main St. Their Satanic Majesties Request. Black n Blue. Out of our Heads. Aftermath. It's Only Rock n Roll. What more needs to be said. If you don't know these albums you haven't started living yet.

 

They can't win, because it's clear - Beatles will win!

 

Well, personally, I can name and sing along with more Rolling Stones songs, but that is purely because I'm a huge fan.

The Beatles and the Stones are both hugely important in the development of Rock N' Roll and indeed music as a whole, and the Beatles of course likely more so. But what it really comes down to is who made the better music, and in my opinion it was the Stones.

 

Like "Sir" Mick Jagger, for instance?

(just saying, I still don't think whether their knighted or not has any relevance to the quality of their music)

 

ROLLING STONES STILL ROLL . PERIOD

 

Songs I can name:
Beatles - Penny Lane, Come Together, Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine, Help
Stones - Sympathy for the Devil, Honky Tonk Woman, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Beast of Burden, Miss You, Angie, Brown Sugar, Start Me Up, Street Fighting Man, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Let's Spend the Night Together
B: 5, RS: 11 (Did not look the names up, these are off the top of my head)

Songs I can sing along with (chorus only):
Beatles - Penny Lane, Come Together, Hard Day's Night, Yellow Submarine, Help
Stones - Sympathy for the Devil, Honky Tonk Woman, Jumpin' Jack Flash, Beast of Burden, Miss You, Angie, Brown Sugar, Start Me Up, Street Fighting Man, You Can't Always Get What You Want, Let's Spend the Night Together
B: 5, RS: 11

Songs I can sing along with (entire song):
Beatles - N/A
Stones - Sympathy for the Devil, Street Fighting Man, You Can't Always Get What You Want
B: 0, RS: 3

 

With the Beatles, I don't do that.
With the Stones, I do.
Don't tell me what I do and don't do.

 

WHAT
IN THE NINE
BLUE-BLAZING HELLS
DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE QUALITY OF THE MUSIC?
(answer correctly = receive cookie)

 

One does not have to be 'hot' to express emotion. I'm sure you would not think of B.B. King as hot. He's an old (around 80?) guy, kinda looks a little fat. He is also one of the most, if not the most, talented and emotional bluesmen around today. No, a Shakira song would not have the same feel/fanbase if Babara Streisand was singing it. Shakira is a young, hot, latina. Very sexy. Adding to the sexiness is her stage performances. I mean, you get to WATCH HER GRIND A MIC STAND AS SHE ORGASMS ON STAGE! That is why her fanbase is so large. She's hot. Nothing to do with her songwriting ability. (Does she even write her own songs? Or are they mass-produced and handed to her so she can chose what she wants to sing?) This is a debate about who wrote better songs, remember. Not about which was the better at Rock 'n' Roll. I happen to think that the Stones were better, but that's a different debate, for a different time.

 

The Adam and Eve of Rock and Roll? Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that Buddy Holly never existed, Elvis wasn't THE KING, Chuck Berry had to wait for Michael J. Fox to take a Delorean back in time before he could make it big.

And it maybe just me but I don't really hear much of the Beatles influence when listening to Jimi Hendrix or Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd... in fact when I'm thinking of things that the Beatles lacked, I really think of the soul Hendrix played with, or that raw power that Zep brought out. If there's one problem the Beatles had... it's that they were the pansiest "rock" group ever. I'll admit they were very talented, and I like a lot of their music, but when I feel like rockin' out I think of anyone but them.

In fact this is why I argue the Stones are that much better, it's because I like rock, and the Stones were 10x more raw rock than the Beatles. Simultaneously they had 10x more soul, they blended the blues into their sound perfectly, Keith Richards was a better guitar player than John, Paul and George combined. Let It Bleed is probably the single greatest response album in history.

and there's one more thing about the Stones that you can't ignore - they could sing about pain in a way the Beatles could never capture. Be it about a dead loved one, a broken heart, or straight up sad and angry emotions - the Stones were the true masters of pain... which makes them so much more human, more flawed, better to relate to.

The Beatles, just for being the Beatles, have this loftiness that surrounds them, like they were angels descended from heaven. The Stones had to climb out of the mud, and they rocked out the whole way doing it.

 

Before they met Robert Zimmerman, and before Brian Wilson locked himself up to write Pet Sounds, the Beatles sang a lot of poppy songs about wanting to hold your hand and money being invalid payment for love.
When the two showed up, The Stones were much more Rock and Roll, and you cannot disagree with that, and that makes them a better rock and roll band. Paul McCartney wrote some pretty stupid freakin songs. Keith Richards injected heroine into his eyelids. Way more badass...

So I totally love the Beatles, but lately I've been thinking they were kind of squares from the start, and yeah they got better and became a way more accomplished and creatively amazing band... but the Stones kick so much ass, and the fact that they still are says something.

 

The Beatles and the Stones are almost the same. I just prefer the Rolling Stones more for 2 reasons.

1. They have a better stage show.
2.Not to make anyone angry but I like their music better

 

I picked the rolling stones.,but did you know that aerosmith
sold more albums in the US and queen sold more albums in
the UK.

 

To add to what i said above i mean sold more than the stones.