Question:

The Beatles or the Rolling Stones

by | earlier

i personally say the rolling stones are complete s**t and that the beatles are so much better

and please dont post an answer like "Led Zeppelin owns them both" or "pink floyd is better"

Tags:

Report

Answer The Question I've Same Question Too

Follow Question

21 ANSWERS

Sort By: Date | Rating

yay Beatles!
Report (0) (0) | earlier
The Beatles.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Pink Floyd is overrated and Led Zeppelin is just not as good as The Beatles. The Beatles were the innovative band. The Stones jut copied them. From the hair cuts to using a sitar to "Their Satanic Majesties"

I agree, The Stones are complete ****
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Why does one have to be s**t?

I think they are both great. Music is an art form, and like any other art form, the beauty is in the eye (in this case ear) of the beholder.

The Beatles were first, so the Stones copied off them somewhat, but every band copies from somewhere, even the Beatles. They covered many tunes of the 50's early in their career.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
The beatles. There music was revolutionary!
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Beatles!!
Report (0) (0) | earlier
beatles
Report (0) (0) | earlier
I like the Beatles too. But I do not think that the RS are complete s**t.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
The Beatles, of course.

:)
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Rolling Stones! Not a big Beatle fan sorry I'm sure you people will give me a thumbs down but WHATEVER!

HA HA HA HA I CAN GIVE ALL OF YOU A THUMBS DOWN TOO HATERS!!!!!!!!!! STONES RULE!
Report (0) (0) | earlier
i like them both but i would say rolling stones are a little bit better
Report (0) (0) | earlier
When the Beatles did Ed Sullivan, I was less than impressed.  Just another chick band.

Then the Stones.  I don't recall if it was the first time on Sullivan or the second,  Jagger kicked my *** with "Ruby Tuesday".    All I could think was "This is more like it".

I'll grant you that the Beatles as a group turned out to to be pretty good songwriters, and decent performers, but for pounding out great kick *** rock and roll live or in the studio, they couldn't touch the Stones.

Report (0) (0) |   earlier
beatles deffianlty
Report (0) (0) | earlier
The Beatles forever!

I grew up way past there time but thanks to my parents I got to listen to them all the time.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
Stones.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
The Beatles
Report (0) (0) | earlier
the beatles are better.....but....led does own them both....its just gravity
Report (0) (0) | earlier
THE BEATLES.

Report (0) (0) | earlier
The Stones are much much better, and forget this rubbish about copying the beatles, Satanic Majesty was joke but in no way did Beggars Banquet, Let it Bleed(which came out BEFORE let it be) Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street .. sound anything like the beatles. and the Stones along with the Who set the bar for a live band.
Report (0) (0) | earlier
beatles

Answer please!!!!

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Report (0) (0) | earlier
The Beatles. At one point very early in their career, a jealous Mick Jagger asked John Lennon if he could give them a song ("I Wanna Be Your Man" was given to them).
Report (0) (0) | earlier