**POLL** Beatles vs. Rolling Stones

[DainBramaged]

I think the Beatles are awesome, however my friends says that The Rolling Stones are a lot better. What do you think?

 

[Konigin]

Beatles, duh.

 

[Lager]

You're comparing Pedro Martinez to John Lieber.

 

[eplebnista]

The Rolling Stones

 

[ohtwell]

Rolling Stones!!

I don't like the Beatles at all. I would have had a harder time choosing had the second choice been The Monkees!


: ) Amanda

 

[anxi80]

beatles of course.

 

[compudog]

Different classification IMHO. Tough one to actually say who is better. There are more Stones alive than Beatles? Does that make the Stones better? I think both bands will live on.

 

[hopeless879]

Beatles.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Beatles.

It is an insult to compare them to the Rolling Stones.

 

Stones by far

 

Originally posted by: ELP
Beatles.

It is an insult to compare them to the Rolling Stones.

an insult to the stones, yes

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: compudog
Different classification IMHO. Tough one to actually say who is better. There are more Stones alive than Beatles? Does that make the Stones better? I think both bands will live on.

The question of whether Keith Richards is technically "alive" could be a good subject for someone's doctoral thesis.

I'd say Beatles. I'm not a big fan, but I think they were much more influential than the Stones.

 

[compudog]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
The question of whether Keith Richards is technically "alive" could be a good subject for someone's doctoral thesis.

I'd say Beatles. I'm not a big fan, but I think they were much more influential than the Stones.

LOL! But there ar still more Stones alive than Beatles.

 

[lowfatbaconboy]

yea don't think you can compare them.............(bad analogy but whatever)
its like comparing some great pop singer and some great rock singer......doesn't work so well

 

[DainBramaged]

Originally posted by: lowfatbaconboy
yea don't think you can compare them.............(bad analogy but whatever)
its like comparing some great pop singer and some great rock singer......doesn't work so well

Actually they were very competitive when they were both active bands.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

The Stones. The Beatles were too happy and poppy for my taste. The Stones had a much darker world view.

 

[anxi80]

Originally posted by: compudog
LOL! But there ar still more Stones alive than Beatles.

yeah, but John couldnt prevent the actions of Mark David Chapman (the deranged fan who shot and killed John Lennon). and cancer got George Harrison.

 

[Walleye]

Dr Hook and the medicine show band! (i think)



oh, wait...

 

[Hector13]

Originally posted by: compudog
Different classification IMHO. Tough one to actually say who is better. There are more Stones alive than Beatles? Does that make the Stones better? I think both bands will live on.

what difference does it make who has more members alive?

I think the beatles were by far better... perhaps a better comparison (for those complaining about the different genres) would be led zep vs. the stones. I think led zep is also far better than the stones ever were.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: FallenHero
Stones by far

 

[hdeck]

they both suck. it's like choosing between aids and cancer.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: hdeck
they both suck. it's like choosing between aids and cancer.

:disgust:

 

[Analog]

Originally posted by: Konigin
Beatles, duh.

 

[Sid59]

i can stand The Beatles more than the Stones.

 

[badmouse]

Wow, brings back memories of my youth in the 60's where we endlessly debated this. I liked the Stones better when I was a teen, but not by a lot. Still like the Stones. Still like the Beatles, too, for that matter.

Now, if you say "Stones vs Beatles plus George, Ringo, John and Paul's work" then I think the Stones have it by a lot.