Beatles or Stones

[Eddie Teach]

Give them time. They will be the Cimarosa to Beatle's Mozart.

In Mozart's day, no performing artist's fame lasted past living memory. I don't think the Beatles would be the Mozarts of their day purely on composition.

[saskganesh]

The Beatles; I do love a lot of the Stone's music but they had some serious misfires along the way.  For instance:

hey! that LP was a major influence on Hawkwind!

[saskganesh]

we need a :stonehedge: smilie.

[Siege]

I can't believe the Beat-less are winning.

Languish disappoints me once again.

[Norgy]

Jagger & co all the way, for me.

See, if they had died tragically in an air crash around 1977, I'd agree. After the Steel Wheelchairs tour, I'm willing tolerate Ringo and George Harrison's solo material and still come out with Beatles way ahead.

[Warspite]

Jagger & co all the way, for me.

See, if they had died tragically in an air crash around 1977, I'd agree. After the Steel Wheelchairs tour, I'm willing tolerate Ringo and George Harrison's solo material and still come out with Beatles way ahead.

I don't buy that argument, because no one forces me to listen to the crap. The fact is I can stick a 60s-early 70s Stone compilation in my stereo and it will be legendary. The later stuff need not cloud their earlier achievement.

[Savonarola]

See, if they had died tragically in an air crash around 1977, I'd agree.

1981 would have been the ideal time for the Stones to cash it in (or at least stop making studio albums); Tattoo You is a fine album.

After the Steel Wheelchairs tour, I'm willing tolerate Ringo and George Harrison's solo material and still come out with Beatles way ahead.

How about if you include Paul's "Silly Love Songs."   

[PDH]

I don't buy that argument, because no one forces me to listen to the crap. The fact is I can stick a 60s-early 70s Stone compilation in my stereo and it will be legendary. The later stuff need not cloud their earlier achievement.

See, that is how you define it, but the fact is that for some the basic idea that the Stones have been around making schlock brain-dead albums and insipid tours for the past 30 years cheapens them overall for others.

If your question was "in their heydays, who was better?" then perhaps less argument.

[Ed Anger]

Jethro Tull is better.

[CountDeMoney]

Jethro Tull is better.

Flute playing faggot.

[Warspite]

I don't buy that argument, because no one forces me to listen to the crap. The fact is I can stick a 60s-early 70s Stone compilation in my stereo and it will be legendary. The later stuff need not cloud their earlier achievement.

See, that is how you define it, but the fact is that for some the basic idea that the Stones have been around making schlock brain-dead albums and insipid tours for the past 30 years cheapens them overall for others.

If your question was "in their heydays, who was better?" then perhaps less argument.

Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? 

[Admiral Yi]

Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? 

Enriched soil.

Fun fact: Mick Jagger's last (only?) solo album sold 50 copies world wide.

[dps]

Depends on exactly what the question is.  If it's, "Who had more influence on popular music and culture?" then clerarly the correct answer is the Beatles.  But if the question is, "Whose music do you like better?" then I'd go with the Stones, though not by a large margin (and I liked The Who better than either).

[Neil]

Hard to say.  Maybe the Beatles, although I like Dylan better than either.

[Norgy]

Brain-dead albums? And what has John Lennon produced in the last 20 years? 

Enriched soil.

Fun fact: Mick Jagger's last (only?) solo album sold 50 copies world wide.

Did it include the raping of Martha & The Vandellas' "Dancing In The Street" with him and Bowie in hip & cool 80s overcoats?