Dominus et deus
Before starting digging Beatles I was saying excactly the same reponse : StonesAlbie said:
The Who- sorry. Easy one - Stones.
This shit is almost worthy of thousand_suns.____no5 said:Today having a deep knowledge of both I JUST CAN'T DECEIDE : technically (regarding music only) Beatles are a million miles away
but I have to recognize that Stones lasted during time without really change (yet they made some experimentations from time to time, like in the albums exile on main st, or black n blue)
You're right, they just don't know when to quit, even after they've become irrelevant.Perun said:the Stones were/are also the better band for not letting their success and egos rise to their heads to the point that it destroys them. They always managed to divert their ego clashes to their musical creativity, hence giving us some of the best rock music ever. As for the Beatles... well, we know what happened.
In other words, as things stand right now, it's a tie. But it took the Stones 25 albums over 42 years to achieve this tie, while the Beatles only needed 11 albums over 7 years.SinisterMinisterX said:If the Beatles had stayed together just as long, we'd have a more valid comparison.