Poll: So. Stones or Beatles?

[Knusper]

Damn, that's difficult. I consider myself as someone who prefers the somewhat heavier genres of music but in spite of that, I think I prefer the Beatles.

 

[infohippie]

Hard choice, I really like 'em both. As the OP said, I remember my parents telling me that when they were young you were either a "Stones man" or a "Beatles man". Apparently my dad was a Stones fan and my mum was a Beatles fan. Makes me wonder how they managed to get together.

 

[Kapol]

I think that the Beatles were a more versatile band, and that they had more really good songs then the Stones. The Stones did have some good ones, but they just didn't have as many that I really like. Plus, the Beatles have their lonely hearts club band on their side.

 

[The Moehlinator]

For me, no contest. Beatles all the way. I enjoy most of the Stones (most, not all), but there really isn't a band that compares to the Beatles. Stones had great personality and stage presence, but....I mean....come on, man....it is the Beatles for Paul's....I mean, Christ's sake.

Off topic, my favorite album of all time is Dark Side of the Moon.

 

[Kungfu_Teddybear]

snip

Epic avatar.

OT: I'm not really a massive fan of either but I prefer The Stones.

 

[Purple Shrimp]

i used to prefer the Beatles but now i'd say Stones, Let it Bleed is my favourite album evef

 

[The_Decoy]

Stones.

The whole cult around the Beatles confuses me somewhat, most of their songs just irritate me. Except for Come Together and a couple of the other ones John wrote, they're pretty good.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I'd say I'm more of a John Lennon and Keith Richards fan than I am either Beatles or Stones fan. That being said, if I had to choose between the two I'd choose The Beatles. Lennon had more of a personal and philisophical impact on me than Richards did, but I learned from both men.

 

[Dr. Feelgood]

I like the Beatles more. The Rolling Stones don't have a lot of good songs, at least compared to The Beatles.

 

[SonofaJohannes]

I like both. But I like the Beatles a bit more. Their music always felt a bit happier. And they had more good songs.

 

[Zeriah]

Stones.

The Stones pioneered the Hard Rock/Blues Rock genre, which is a genre that I adore. The Beatles on the other hand pioneered the pop rock hippy stuff which I never found interesting. Sure they mixed around in other genres and they have their fair share of songs that I do like, but they have a lot more that I just find 'meh'.

 

[antidonkey]

Gotta go with the stones.

While I appreciate what the Beatles did for the industry and music as a whole, I've never been a fan of their tunes. I don't dislike them but find them boring.

 

[TehCookie]

The Beatles. I still like the Stones but their music isn't constantly good, it's either awesome or bad and not a large middle ground. The Beatles are more consistent with every song being good.

 

[Gaiseric]

Stones.

Don't care for the Beatles.

 

[HerrBobo]

The Stones are great, but the Beatles are better. No band is more consistently brilliant.

 

[Nichael Bluth]

Stones had Exile on Main St., Let It Bleed, and Sticky Fingers, all legendary albums. Beggars Banquet too, arguably.

The Beatles had The White Album, Sgt. Peppers, Abbey Road, Revolver, Rubber Soul, and arguably A Hard Day's Night.

Both are great bands, but no other band has had as many truly great albums as The Beatles.

 

[ReservoirAngel]

The Stones, any day. I never liked the Beatles (something which always earns me criticism) but I grew up listening to the Stones thanks to my dad's music.

 

[ImSkeletor]

I have never liked the beatles so i vote for the stones.

 

[Les Awesome]

What about the Who?
aren't they considered to be in a trilogy of the british invasion

OT: the Beatles