Prog/Non Prog Battle: Beatles vs Rolling Stones

Bands listed and not listed in the PA database but often regarded, cross-referenced and linked together. Which one do you prefer?

Stones. Plenty of good songs the best were usually the singles. Bit more simple than the Beatles but highly effective. Both are actually quite good C and W bands (first Ringo's lot pre -Rubber Soul, then Keith's outfit around Beggar's Banquet.

Still don't see the relationship between Pepper and Satanic Majesties. A Day In The Life is the best number off both though. Courageous effort though from The Stones and a very accomplished one with a little help from their friend George Martin. Probably prefer Pepper overall but like The Beatles the best efforts were the contemporary but non LP singles (We Love You and Strawberry Fields).

Still around Abbey Road time there was Let It Bleed and both are fine albums. Shame The Beatles couldn't have continued performing - the concert stage return was the stimulus The Stones needed along with a bunch of top albums. Still some of the the solo Beatles records (Imagine, All Things and Band On The Run) give the Strolling Bones a run for their money. But The Stones played, wrote songs, recorded and kept going in a musical world (rock and pop) that does not require progression (change).

That game was all over around 1973 - '74 really.

I see two of the same.

The Beatles.

The simplicity of Stones' music was their strength.

Stool Man wrote: Beatles in the 60s, Stones afterwards

Beatles, no doubt.

A tough question. The Rolling Stones never had an album that would be as strong as 'Sgt Pepper', but otherwise there's more interesting songs for me from the Stones than from the Beatles.

Think I'm going to vote for the Stones because of 'Paint It, Black'. A terrific song.

The Fab Four.

None of the them is my cup of tea, but The Beatles made a musical revolution, and his music is more adventurous and complex. The Stones is just a simple rock music, good but no more than this.