The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Anyone who says "c'mon" to the Beatles, or even worse, "neither", was either not around or not listening enough to appreciate their respective influence first hand, or has absolutely no concept with respect to the history of rock and roll.

Sorry, but it's true.

The Stones always followed the Beatles, except when the Stones tried to live up to their image. They were a darker version of the Beatles. After too many years of reading their own press clippings they tried to be bad and play with Satanism for a few LPs.

The Stones were always followers, but were good at reading the trends, and following closely. Would the Beatles ever have gone disco???

I think the Beatles broke more new ground in music than the Stones. Therefore, if one had to go away, I would pick the Stones.

While I'm glad they both did exist, my choice would easily be the Rolling Stones. The Stones are a classic rock & roll group, but the Beatles were a much more innovative and musially complex group. I believe they paved the way for more groups, and more interesting music, than the Stones. Plus their songs had tunes and some lyrics that were more memorable than anything the Stones ever did.

Definately the Beatles. Never understood all the hype. Nice songs, but come on!

That's easy. Neither.