Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

The Beatles or the Rolling Stones?

If you had to choose to listen to only one...why?
Sueisright · 31-35, F
Stones totally. Don’t rate the Beatles at all
4thdimensiondream · 61-69, M
Beatles. Nothing against the Stones but I see them as just a good rock n roll band. The Beatles changed music. Heck they changed the world.
MisterMeccano · 56-60, M
Stones. A much more talented band.
MrGomco · 36-40, M
Rolling Stones!!
ididntknow · 51-55, M
I like both
katielass · F
Stones, no question
MasterLee · 56-60, M
Stones, beatles are horrid
RedRider72 · M
Beatles hands down...you listen to every album they ever made, and none of them were the same..
MartiniTime · 56-60, M
Beatles! Their evolution as a band and song writers is AMAZING to me. The Stones got famous doing covers of old Blues Tunes......which is not a bad thing, but from a creativity standpoint, the Beatles win. Even the name is creative.....BEATles....the beat....the play on words.

BUT, if you go by guitar riffs and sheer rockability........the Stones would win.
SW-User
@MartiniTime Very well said. I couldn't agree more.
Normanwestie · 61-69, M
Rolling Stones every time one of of my all time fav bands
FreeSpirit1 · 51-55, F
Stones have a more extensive catalog
LienOnYourDreams · 41-45, M
Stones all the way.
Degbeme · 70-79, M
The Beatles
Harmonium1923 · 51-55, M
The Beatles did a lot more interesting stuff. They wrote something like 300 original songs. It's amazing that the same guys did 8 Days A Week, Eleanor Rigby, Lovely Rita, Get Back, and on and on.
Dale321 · M
Stones. Beatles are so over played, over covered by the media. It's great music but so over exposed, I cringe every time I hear one of their songs.
Ghauzy · 51-55, M
The Beatles take me for a ride thru many places and many colors. Across the universe is a movie I can watch many times over.
jackson55 · M
The Beatles were good, but the stones are still around. Keith Richards wrote a book called Life, it's pretty good.
Whyme · 46-50, M
Ive done nothing wrong why torture me with neverending horrible music
VioletRayne · 31-35, F
[c=#4C0073]Beatles. I like their music better[/c]
SW-User
The Beatles, no question.
ozzydevil · M
Rolling Stones
SW-User
[c=#BF0000]T[/c][c=#BF6900]h[/c][c=#A69800]e[/c] [c=#359E00]B[/c][c=#009E4F]e[/c][c=#008099]a[/c][c=#003BB2]t[/c][c=#7700B2]l[/c][c=#BF0080]e[/c][c=#800055]s[/c]
SW-User
I'm going to see Paul McCartney in October, while he's on tour.
chrisCA · M
I can't decide. 😟
@chrisCA same.
Rolling Stone
Ramon67 · 61-69, M
The Beatles
MartiniTime · 56-60, M
One more thing........did Clapton ever play on a Stones tune? NOPE, but he did for the Beatles ....... While my Guitar Gently Weeps. Look it up.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Gforce1163 · 56-60, M
Definitely the Beatles. Much broader range of musical styles
Tantrapleasure · 56-60, M
Beatles. I've seen the Stones many time, never did see the Beatles.
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Beatles!...Revolutionary!
rachelsj · 22-25, F
uncalled4 · 56-60, M
Beatles. Far larger variety of songs and much, much better singing.
@uncalled4 this is super hard, though. I love the Stones. Love the Beatles too. I’d give it to the Beatles by just a hair based on the library of work, but Stones are an awesome band and the rough part for them is they were during Beatlemania and got a bit overshadowed by the Fab Four or else they’d have even been bigger. Terrible question. Ugh.
@uncalled4 technically the Stones have a bigger library, though. I’d argue the Beatles have a bigger catalog of hit songs, though.

Beatles 12 studio albums 208 songs

Stones 25 studio albums 422 songs

 
Post Comment