I believe its the Rolling Stones. There is much more to there music. It has more substance and diversity in style.
2007-02-24 06:53:00 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Music
i believe its the rolling stones there music is more diverse and creative
2007-02-24 06:58:27 · answer #1 · answered by sexycaramel 2 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
the beatles are more talented and more diverse. You need to listen to the albums not just the songs on the radio. THe Beatles were the first to use feedback on a record, the first to play the sitar in western pop music (which the stones later did). The Beatles influenced the Beach Boys, Bruce Springsteen, Nirvana, Green Day, and countless others. Dylan influenced John, and made him realize that he could write more personal and consceince songs. Dylan also intruduced them to pot. George's dentist introduced him and John to lsd, so they did do drugs. But lets not forget that John and Paul wrote the stone's first hit song. in this way the inspired mick and keith to write their own songs. this is why i believe that teh beatles are better. also the beatles created all of their music in a span of 8 years, the stones started one year after the beatles. but they are still going, which is why some people say they are better. also, how about their first appearence on the ed sullivan show was the most watched in u.s. history. or how they are the biggest selling band in the world 30+ years after they broke up!!! not even the stones and all the records that they have released in that time.
2007-02-24 07:17:54 · answer #2 · answered by mrkramer5 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
the Beatles came out before the stones and had to go through the hard times and the change that evolved with in them. You should compare bands that are still together. All of the Beatles did very well on there own, because there was all that talent. The Stones, all my friends are junkies and cocaine eyes. That the Beatles were not. None of them were junkies. Do some acid and listen to Sgt. Pepper and u will see.
2007-02-24 07:08:08 · answer #3 · answered by have not a clue 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Beatles
2007-02-24 07:00:09 · answer #4 · answered by becca 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Beatles
2007-02-24 06:55:37 · answer #5 · answered by Pantherempress 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
You can definitely say the same about The Beatles. As a group, The Beatles were far better writers and musicians than the Stones.
The Stones and their management were much better at business.
2007-02-24 06:57:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You have to realize, their music was a bit apart timewise. But the beatles were better. They made music what it is today, they moved people, and they're timeless. I hadnt really heard the rolling stones up until recently (im 21!) but i had heard beatles my whole life, not only from my mom, but my sisters, and a lot of TV stuff. I remeber being little and Ringo Starr was on Thomas the Tank Engine. Beatles were better, sorry...
2007-02-24 07:00:01 · answer #7 · answered by kissamoose217 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I beg to differ. the Beatles could rock out ferociously, but were also masters of arte musique (White Album) and witty and precious pop. The Stones were doing the same old tired "British white guys imitating John Lee Hooker" vibe for 20 years, before they and their songbook slid into oblivion.
Sorry for Stones fans, but not even a close contest. The Stones are baby boom nostalgia; the Beatles are timeless -- classic AND relevant.
2007-02-24 06:59:05 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The Beatles, they didn't need the drugs. Heck if they were around 50 years they may have been more diverse as well.
2007-02-24 07:04:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
well they're both very very known bands. I personally prefer the beatles simply because I grew up listening to them. However the stones have some amazing songs aswell.
It all depends what type of rock you prefer to listen to.
2007-02-24 06:57:11 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋