Who's better Guns n' Roses or The Rolling Stones ?

Answer 1

Guns n Roses in my opinion.

~Scottie

Answer 2

The Rolling Stones

Answer 3

Guns n" Roses hasn't had the staying power of the Rolling Stones. Axl Rose hasn't learn to let go and just make music. He must think that it is a rocket to Mars he is building, it takes him so long to release an album. I think that the Stones are a better band because they release more music and tour more often. For a while in the late 80s and early 90s, Guns was tops in the world, but they lost their way.

Answer 4

Rolling Stones, without a doubt.

Answer 5

Guns n' Roses for music, Rolling Stones for ugliness - I thought Mick Jagger would get better looking with age.

Answer 6

Is there really even a comparison here? I mean Gun's and Roses didnt sell nearly enough albums to even compete with The Rolling Stones... Slash was the only musician worth a sh.it in the band... meanwhile the rolling stones are still together, they still tour and all but one of the band members is still in the band... Guns and Hoses only has one member remaining... the crappiest singer of all time... while the rest of them have moved on to bigger and better things(duff and slash in Velvet Revolver, and Gilby Clark in SuperNova) I mean even the crack head Drummer from the 80's is doing somthing cooler than G n R... Guns and Roses Can't even begin to touch the Forfathers of modern rock......

Answer 7

The Rolling Stones
no question

Twice as old, twice as good!

Answer 8

rolling stones

Answer 9

GUNS N' ROSES!!!! (check my name)
Rolling Stones have a more bluesy sound...They are okay though, that's one of Slash's influences.

Answer 10

GNR - Influential, but self-destructive. A touring parody of their former selves (featuring only one original member).

Stones - Influential, durable, and still filling up anywhere they play, regardless of cost with three original members, and one who has been with them 30 years.

I'll say the Stones.