The Beatles were more innovative, versatile and peerless songwriters pushing the boundaries of music.
The Beatles actually helped The Rolling Stones on a number of occasions: singles, songwriting, albums, live performances, progression, etc. Plus, The Beatles were turned down by Decca Records in 1962: "Guitar groups are on their way out Mr. Epstein." So Decca was reluctant to sign The Rolling Stones, figuring they couldn't afford to lose another rock group.
The help me feel better when I listen to their music.
Because... I am the the Walrus.
BEATLES HAD FAR MORE COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL SONGS.
EACH BEATLE WAS ADORED BY THEIR FANS.
MICK JAGGER APPEARS TO BE THE ONLY STONE ADORED BY FANS.
ALTHOUGH THE STONES WERE FANTASTIC,THE BEATLES ARE THE OBVIOUS CHOICE.
THERE CAN NEVER BE A GROUP LIKE THEM AGAIN(LENNON-MCCARTNEY)COMPOSITIONS WERE PHENONOMEN.
NO COMPARISON , MY OPINION.
I have always been a huge fan of the Beatles for many reasons. While both the Stones and the Beatles produced excellent music, the Psychedelic undertones of the Beatles have always been appealing. Don't get me wrong I love rock music, but sometimes slowing the beat down a little bit and relaxing is better than rocking out.
rtysd
Better Looking
I only really know about the Beatles
Lennon and Mccartney one of the great songwriters of the 20th century
I like Beatles more :)
The Beatles started it all. There was no British Invasion before the Beatles, and there would not have been one without them. Everything that followed is an imitation-including the Stones.
