The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Fatparrot is correct. Imagine a history course on the last half of the 20th century. The Beatles would figure prominently on many levels while the Stones may get mentioned as influential musicians.
My kids and grandkids are familiar with Beatles music and can identify them when they hear them on the radio. Can't say the same for the Stones.

love 'em both, but seem to reach for stones much more than the fab four.

I remember this "battle" in a 1965 issue of Tiger Beat magazine. Are teenyboppers coming back?
Madonna's taking sitar lessons!

For those of you who think the Stones were tougher than the Beatles, remember where each band came from and how they formed. The Beatles were the toughened Liverpool kids, having had the Hamburg education as well, the Stones were the sweet well-educated London kids. When Brian Epstein cleaned up the Beatles the Stones had to differentiate themselves and so adopted the tough personae. But in a barroom brawl in Hanmburg back in 62' the Beatles would have (and sometimes did!) wooped ass.

Not that this matters to music of course.

musiclly, the beatles from Revolver and thereafter are more interesteing to listen to. their use of classical themes and other instruments then guitars, keyboards and drums was very creative.

thier lyrics were more amusing than many of the stones songs.