The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones


If you had to choose that one of these groups never existed,which means that all their contributions to popular music never happened which one would it be?
qdrone
The same type of overexposure regarding Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, et.al. that have left no mystery for 200+ years?

No. There is plenty of "mystery" left in their stuff: different interpretations, transcriptions, instruments, and the music itself has so many layers to consider; from listening to the great melodies ("tunes"),to how themes are worked out, etc. As Tvad aluded to, a Bach piece can be played on an organ, by a brass quintet or a full orchestra. It's still Bach, but it's different and interesting. A Beatles cover by some other singer or band just ain't the Beatles.

But as to the qn. about the two bands; I never understood the fascination with the Rolling Stones. On some of their studio recordings instruments and vocals are painfully out of tune. Or is that part of the fascination? As somebody pointed out, the Beatles were the best song-writers since Schubert.

A fifty-one-year-old fogey,

Steve O.
bands in rock and pop.
As for the choice between The Beatles or The Rolling Stones, it's a no brainier, I'd always choose The Who.
I would always bet on scousers (c'mon de 'pool') in fisticuffs against southern 'kent'ish 7oaks softies!
Beatles.....hands down. No brainer. Songwriting, playing, singing... hands down, Beatles far superior.
sorry...the kinks have permission to move ahead of the who and zepplin.....you may proceed the argument.