Beatles or Stones

[Warspite]

Jagger & co all the way, for me.

[The Brain]

Had to vote Beatles since the Stones are a joke and are only remembered today because they're still around.

[The Brain]

What? Did I accidentally vote Stones? FAIL

[Admiral Yi]

Beatles.  Songwriting genius over showmanship.

[The Brain]

I demand a recount. The results freak me out.

[DisturbedPervert]

Stones

[Jaron]

Stones suck.

[Tonitrus]

Beatles = vastly overrated

[Ed Anger]

They both suck donkey dick.

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Both awesome in my books. slight edge to Beatles for my own sentimental reasons. Really though as bands aside from both being sort of "Invasion" bands, they are as different as night and day.

I can listen to a few songs or an album of either of these bands most any day.

people who go on about how over rated either band is, is just being an asshole. They are institutions. They aren't going anywhere.

[Syt]

60s/70s Stones > Beatles > 80s - present Stones

The current Stones are the best Stones cover band these days, though.

[grumbler]

Never saw the attraction of the Stones, frankly.  At their best they were... loud.

Simon and Garfunkel own both of them, though the Beatles less than the Stones.

[Eddie Teach]

Never saw the attraction of the Stones, frankly.  At their best they were... loud.

Simon and Garfunkel own both of them, though the Beatles less than the Stones.

Simon and Garfunkel were great, but not all that versatile(at least when they were together*). The Beatles could rock out one song, then be as tender as S&G the next.

*Of course Paul Simon's solo career he continued making soft music, just with more exotic instruments.

[grumbler]

Simon and Garfunkel were great, but not all that versatile(at least when they were together*). The Beatles could rock out one song, then be as tender as S&G the next.

Well, they were definately different genres, but S&G had no bungled songs like "Why Don't We Do It in the Road' or "Tomorrow Never Knows."

True, they only released five albums, but that was at least in part because they didn't fill them with filler crap.

"The Complete Simon and Garfunkel" has more great songs, IMO, the "The Complete Beatles."  Add George Harrison's post-Beatles stuff, and I will concede the tie.

[Sophie Scholl]

Close run thing, but The Stones later stuff is crap, whereas the split Beatles stuff has some ok to amazing things.  Put together, The Stones lasted too long and The Beatles maybe not long enough.