The Rolling Stones vs. The Beatles
 

which do you prefer, and why? id hafta say the stones, because they were much more diverse than the beatles, and to me, the beatles songs all sound the same.

I point you in the direction of this thread that says everything i`d like to express here

http://www.musicbanter.com/showthread.php?t=4392

^^^^^^ couldn't have said it better if I tried.

The beatles by a long shot, the abbey road album has songs which are still musicly ahead of stuff today

the rolling stones, they were pure rock way back in the begining of the sixties while the beatles were still singing their lollipop music for the girlies ( "i wanna hold your hand, i wanna hold your hand..."....please....)

The Beatles for definate I say. The musical geneius involved in revolver, abbey road and sgt.peppers is just amazing. Well thats what I think anyway...

Stones. I was raised on 'em.

the beatles- i adore them. to those say they lack diversity may i point out the fact that their early career was the complete antithesis to their latter career. their experimentation with brass, time pieces and other sound effects opened up new avenues for other bands in the late 70s. but hey sure a lot of you disagree.

pure rock?

anyway, i like beatles better, their music ranges so much, from happy love ballads to psycadelia to crazy distortion blues songs.
i like rollin stones but alotta their songs sound the same

I think it`s rather unfair to say the Beatles never evolved.

It just so happens that I think what they evolved into was ****