10 Reasons Why The Rolling Stones Were Better Than The Beatles
 

1. Keith Richards , coolest guitarist on the planet

2. Mick Jagger , greatest frontman of all time

3. Yoko Ono or Marianne Faithful ,back in the 60s who would you rather have been seen on the arm with ?

4. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are better than kiddie love songs & mystical bollocks.
Beatles - Wrote chart friendly pop songs & ballads. Stones wrote gritty hard rock songs

5. The Beatles had to have their faces on album covers , The Stones could stick a picture of a toilet on theirs & still have it sell millions.

6. Stones - The 70s , Exile On Main Street, Sticky Fingers, It`s Only Rock n Roll
Beatles - The 70s , Wings , Yoko Ono`s songwriting & Ringo Starr solo albums *shudder*

7. The Beatles stopped touring because they couldn`t hack it , Keith Richards played an entire gig at gunpoint.

8. Charlie Watts would never lower himself to doing Thomas The Tank Engine voiceovers.

9. Paul McCartney - The Frog Chorus , Mick Jagger - She`s The Boss.
Both bad yes but if forced at gunpoint I know what i`m going to choose.

10 Apperence , looking like you just got dragged from the street > Matching suits. How many bands these days look like this...

http://donmarko99.free.fr/Autres/Beatles.jpg

And how many bands these days look like this ....

http://www.zenuk.com/pics/otherartists/stones1966.jpg

No contest

11. When the Stones had a strop with each other they didn't start a cat fight that's carried on for 30 years despite one of the people involved in the cat fight being dead.

They were both equally as good at what they were supposed to do

But personally point number 4 is all i need, prefer Stones rock music over pop music any day

before you attack me, i love both these bands...however...
points 1 and 2 are matters of opionion. its subjective. point 3 is totally irrevelant to the topic. how does the woman on your arm effect how good the music is? point 4- again its personal opinion. some people prefered the flower-power hippy idealisms to the rock n roll facade in the 60s. no. 5 is not entirely correct as the white album, yellow submarine and 1 did not feature their faces. Anyway, merely having the band name is just as effective as the band pictures and im pretty sure the stones had their name on every frontcover of their albums. no. 7...how does playing at gunpoint make you a better band than someone else? no. 9 wasnt exactly the bands was it? they were solo projects and we're not talking about solos. no. 10, the beatles image was pure 60s- it was the fad of the day just as the long haired, emo look is nowadays. did the stones crasck america in anyway near the extent the beatles did? im sure they didnt. granted the stones have had a longer career and that is the mark of a great band. but i still prefer the beatles

It's all opinion. If you like the Beatles appearence, music, and lyrics you listen to the Beatles. Likewise for Rolling Stones. Songs about sex , drugs , deprevation , heartache , rejection , revenge & decadence are not necesarily better than the Beatles love songs, thats just what you may be into. You can only say that The Rolling Stones are a better band then the Beatles in your opinion. They maybe more musically talented then them but they're not better than them.

Why have message boards at all? Why post? We should just come here everyday and post what we like and no one should do anything but agree. Thats as boring as hell. He made good points and you can't refute them so you go "well thats all a matter of opinion." Why open your mouth? If you know its opinion then don't join in the damn argument. You ruin it for everyone else who wants to try to persuade people with their own arguments. Sweet Jesus, if ever we need to make a rule for these boards it should be to never mention opinon or reference it in anyway.

point four basically makes no sense. Although the beatles were basically a mainstream pop band, they did write about meaningful things. Death, drugs (yes a lot of their songs were actually about drugs, just with codes in their lyrics because at the time the beatles came out, drugs were way more underground than when the stones came out), among those, the death of the monarchy and church in britain, alot of their songs are extremely deep, you're just not listening close enough, the meaning is there, but it's expressed through metaphors.

i've always preferred the Rolling Stones to the Beatles. probably because that's one of those bands i was brought up on.

Drugs were 'mainstream' even before the beatles , the teddy boys used to swallow uppers & shoot speed in the late 50s early 60s just as much as the punks did in the 70s. Yes you are right , the Beatles did sing about drugs , but they dressed them up with so many metaphores they ended up sounding like childrens nursary rhymes. Just listen to Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds & then go listen to Sister Morphine & tell me which song has the more realistic portrayal of drugs.

everyone has a right to say what they want regardless of people like you telling them they shouldnt. anyway, opinion is an arguement in itself, what other way can you say to someone "on no, jagger isnt the best frontman ever?" opinion is the basis of every arguement. you cannot objectively proove anyone is better than anyone else. anfd how does it spoil it for everyone else?!