I like them both, but I'm with the monkey- no other band had such an effect on EVERYTHING. First band to insist on doing their own material primarily. Every band afterwards benefited from their lead. Sgt. Pepper's- there's no denying its legacy. It blew everyone away- music fans, music critics, and most of all- MUSICIANS. Every other band after that knew they had to step up their game. From recording techniques, to lyrical content, to thematic inovations- it literally changed the way people listened to music and the way people made and recorded music. To deny its influence simply means YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION.

You can't compare them in terms of live performance because at the height of their abilities the Beatles quit performing live. I love the Stones. There's no arguing they can rock. In terms of songwriting though, there's just no comparison. The breadth and depth of the Lennon/McCartney cannon is untouchable- and you put Harrison in there as well, and the Beatles legacy is just untouchable.

Ultimately, it's a stupid debate. People make their choices based on what appeals to them, and that's the way it should be. They are two of the greatest bands ever. Measuring influence and legacy is possible, however. Anybody who can look impartially can see the Beatles' reach is much farther.

I like The Beatles much better but they're both fine bands. Neither is #1 in my book. The Beatles have more depth, better evolution of sound, and they experimented more in my opinion. Cocksucker Blues be damned, I take the Fab 4.

By the time The Beatles hit the shores of the good ole U.S. of A. I was a little boy of 6....but I can still remember the impact. The Ed Sullivan Show was my first encounter.......I can still remember my father talking about there hair. There is NO denying that they changed the face of Rock & Roll. And they continued to put out great music till the end and beyond with the solo efforts.

I also grew up on The Stones and love their music....but there really is no comparison....apples & oranges. Two great bands who , depending on my mood, I will toss a CD in and enjoy and reminisce about days gone by.




or something like that

the one thing is - the beatles knew when to call it quit so they disbanded while they were still great.

the stones were good - 25 years ago but they've been spinning their 'steel wheels' since that time.


better to burn out than to fade away..

AGREED! i saw the stones about five years ago and it was fun but i couldn't help but feel they were waaay past their primes (not just physically but musically and creatively). the beatles had the advantage of really going out on top. i mean, say what you want about abbey road (the last album recorded though not the last released) - it is an amazingly diverse and creative album. not a bad note to go out on.

YES! Us Brits haven't produced too many Rock Bands, but two we have are so good they divide people across the world.

Rule Britannia,
Rule, the waves,
Britons never will be slaves.

you havent been alive very long


there was a time when most of the rock bands came from the uk

I know we've made a good few, but not nearly as many as the US.

I agree with NE

The Beatles are simply awesome. The scope of thier impact on music & culture is beyond comparison. Their rapid evolution from 3-chord bar-band to complex experimental musicians is astounding.

The music of The Beatles is full of beautiful melodies, layered harmonies, odd instrumentation and a very real message about love... The Rolling Stones are fast, ugly, sloppy and all about sex & violence

so of course my love for the Stones will always be just a little stronger than The Stones... but I'll take The Clash over either of them!

Eeerrrh...... As long as you're sure, dude...