|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
So which band was better, The Beatles or The Stones?
Oft asked, frequently analyzed, never proven, this question deserves more characters than you can fit into an Answer window.
It don't think either one was better, their music was different and each is great in its own way.
are you talking about 'better' or 'like', often people confuse the terms and presume that because they like something it is better. the Beatles and the Stones are both good, they are different and one isn't better than the other. I like them both and I think they are both good.
I like the Sex Pistols, but I know they are not good; I dislike Bach, but I know his music is excellent.
If both bands broke up in 1970 and had a similar period of time to develop a body of work, I would opt for the Beatles. With an extra 40 years of work, it's hard to dismiss the Rolling Stones.
Because I can listen to any Beatles song (not just classic hits) more easily than I can listen to any Rolling Stones song, I would personally give the nod to the Beatles. As Uninvited Writer suggests, however, each band is great in its own way.
My first band choice would be the Beatles, although I am a fan of both. I grew up around both groups, saw the Beatles perform live in Montreal in 64 at the Montreal Forum. Both groups had diversity in music, over the years changes took place and I would have to say that the Beatles music culture had a huge impact on the cannabis followers and I was truly one of them. I can't tell you how many HIGH times I enjoyed listening to the songs the Beatles created. The Stones are most definitely my second choice, but neither one of these groups can be put side by side, they are so vastly different. I am so glad I grew up in the sixties to have enjoyed their music and live in it. I slip a CD every other day of both these groups into my player and reflect to a time when life was simple as I close my eyes and enjoy two groups that inspired me.
Personally, I like The Beatles... aware that both bands play different types of music, somehow, could not get adapted to The Rolling Stones music, although I do like one or two of their songs like "Ruby Tuesday"... purely a preference, on my part..
Hey all, I was actually asking this question of a particular person, I'm not sure how it works, but I guess anyone can answer. I used "better" because it can be interpreted literally, as in "the better talented band" or in a more subjective manner, as in "the better band to listen to, in your opinion." To use "like" would have limited the breadth of possible responses. I was aiming for giving more room for interpretation as to what "better" means and hoping the person's answer would include a qualifier, and not just cop out by saying they are different and that both are good, no offense. I was just hoping to spark some discussion on it and hear what people think of the merits of each band and why.
I love both bands, I've listened to more of the Beatles, but I think that the Rolling Stones were better because they were seemingly unfiltered in their song writing. Both the loose style and the diversity of subject matter that often entered the realm of the moody and dark. They had gusto and swagger that I don't think the Beatles had. More rock, less pop, perhaps.
Score board goes to they Beatles, Money, girls going nuts , I prefer the Stone their music is more raw Bad ass rock and roll.
Oh wow. That's a toughie. The Beatles were more creative...but the Stones were more down to earth and raw. Both were or are among the best groups ever created.
If this is based on sales and chart postions that's easy the Beatles win hands down. From a personal standpoint i like them both and where would music be without both their contributions!
In terms of the quality of the material in the overall catalogue of each group, I would have to go with The Beatles. They crossed lines and continued to sell records that were well-known. The vast majority of their albums contain original song groupings whereas the Rolling Stones have been known to recycle songs multiple times on to various albums. Now, for selected material and a rock n' roll mood, I gotta go with The Stones...give me "Start Me Up" anytime, anywhere. That's one hot lick! Thanks. WB
I love the Rolling Stones --- but I still do not hesitate for even a second in saying The Beatles. I am a Beatles freak.
If you like white middle class college boys playing black blues, its the Stones. If you like art school boys trying to sound like they're Americans, the Beatles of course.
both equally as good in their own right. the stones reaction to social issues became evident in a different form than the beatles. The beatles took a peaceful approach of love and tolerance where the stones almost became the anti hero band and didn't mind getting their fists bloodied. good vs bad boys images...
this can't be answered with just a quick offhand generalization. it's in the eye and ears of the the beholder no?
I'm a fan of both but I like the Beatles the best, I never get tired of playing their music, I need a daily fix of Beatles music !
Both bands are phenomenal, but personally, I would have to go with The Beatles. The music throughout The Beatles' career is very diverse. I thoroughly enjoy this quality about their music.
Great music is usually a matter of opinion. . . .especially with regards to age groups, and a trillion other factors. . .but I have to say that the Beatles were more influential, on a macro level-with regards to the whole culture of mankind, and not just the States, and those Islands across the pond.
I have to admit that Arthur Lee's 'Love' were a better band than both of them put together. All three bands came out of the same era, but only one of them was truly innovative
First of all I like them both. And I feel that when you're comparing the two you're talking about two of the greatest songwriting collaborations ever. But I like the Beatles over the Rolling Stones. Just look at the many indelible songs they left on the pop landscape over just nine years of recording. In 1973, three years after their breakup, the Beatles released two huge volumes of presumably their best work on two two-vynil-disk sets, commonly referred to as the Red and Blue albums. This is what Beatle fans were waiting for because some of their most famous songs were released as singles but weren't originally included as part of an album. That being said, here's my list of memorable Beatle tracks that didn't make the Red and Blue collections: Birthday, Dear Prudence, For No One, Got to Get You Into My Life, Happiness is a Warm Gun, I Will, Julia, Oh! Darling, She Came in Through the Bathroom Window, She's Leaving Home, and When I'm Sixty-Four. My point is they were prolific. And they were a great studio band. They chose to be. They stopped touring in 1966 and became strictly studio artists. This led to great creativity, beginning with the album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band.
by mastergreen2 years ago
Who is the best - The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Kiss, Bob Dylan, Elvis, Sinatra or MJ?You must have heard that all of them were at the top of the music industry during their heyday. So here is the real...
by RickBurnett4 years ago
The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?
by 6 String Veteran7 years ago
Ok, so Elvis was the King of Rock. Or was it Little Richard? Or Ike Turner? Bo Diddley? Beethoven? Jimi Hendrix? Or were the Beatles the Kings?Who was the KING? ...and why?6SV
by MickeySr6 years ago
I'll give my own answer after I see some of yours - I'm hoping, of course, that someone sees the 'overratedness' of the band I think is terribly overrated and sees the 'underratedness' of the band I think is terribly...
by Thomas Silvia5 years ago
What is your favorite Rolling Stones Song and why ?
by Jeffrey Yelton3 years ago
What's your favorite Rolling Stones song?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.