The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

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.

If you have not seen the DVD "Hail, HAil Rock and Roll" which documents Keith putting together a band/concert for Chuck Berry , ya should. It shows just how great Keith and Chuck are.
Also, it's almost scary that several times Keith comes off as the "voice of reason".
Weim_boy  (Answers)

I saw that show. Fascinating.

This is not even close - Stones. The Beatles laid the groundword for just about everything you hear on the radio today.

>>I'd take the Stones over the Beatles in a bar brawl<<

NO FAIR!!! Home field advantage.

To me, the Beatles defined a new style of music at the time whereas the Stones followed in a sorta pop way. Enjoyed all when it was new.