The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

While I'm glad they both did exist, my choice would easily be the Rolling Stones. The Stones are a classic rock & roll group, but the Beatles were a much more innovative and musially complex group. I believe they paved the way for more groups, and more interesting music, than the Stones. Plus their songs had tunes and some lyrics that were more memorable than anything the Stones ever did.

It's fun to read these responses. Along some of the lines mentioned, back in 1965, I believe it was, Dan Ingram, then the 2-6 pm DJ on WABC AM in NY (who also had a very nice jazz show on FM), said on the air that he didn't like the Rolling Stones, he thought they were a cheap imitation of the Beatles, or words to that effect. Within a half hour the station was flooded with calls from irate Stones fans, so much so that Ingram announced on the air that he would run a contest, send him a letter why he should or should not like the Rolling Stones, and he'd give $10 to the best letter for and against. The winner of the pro-Stones crowd was a 7 or so page impassioned letter written by two teen-aged girls; the winner of the anti-Stones letters was one that simply said he shouldn't like the Rolling Stones because they were costing him $20!

The Stones have since grown on me over time, though I admit I sent ol' Dan an anti-Stones letter back then.