I don't think that anyone could not know at least one Beatles song. They are still influencing music today from their songs. I feel like the Beatles helped influence the Stones. The Beatles have lasted longer through the ages and not a lot of people still listen to the Rolling Stones as compared to the Beatles. My main point in this is current popularity- because in a 'who is better' poll, it's an opinion at first glance because, yes, I do like the Beatles better, but my main justification is that they lasted longer than the Stones.
The Beatles are the bases to a lot of the music we have now in today's society. Beatles have done really well in their time, and are still largely remembered outside their time. However, the Stones are still a great band, I think the Beatles just have more people still listening to them.
The Beatles ushered in a new era with their music; the Stones began during that era. As much as I love the Stones, and as much as one can argue the quality of both bands, to me, "better" in this case refers to durability or endurance, and I believe that the music of the Beatles is most enduring.
While both bands were great and influential on the face of music, the Beatles have the greatest impact. Perhaps a lot of that has to do with the Beatles disbanding earlier and the death of John Lennon, but more young listeners know about more music by the Beatles whether they like it or not.
The Beatles music is timeless and therefore, better. While both bands were popular at their time and their music is still heard by millions, I believe that the "pop" sound that the Beatles utilized will live on longer than the "rock" sound of the Stones. As someone who was not alive during the peak of either band and has only heard them through mass media (movies, commercials, TV shows, etc.), I think the fact that I can recall nearly ten times as many Beatles songs proves that the Beatles will be remembered longer. For me, the true mark of success is to stand the test of time.
Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr are the last 2 Beatles, and Ringo, the most talented of the pair, is practically irrelevant. But my point isn't over how overrated Paul McCartney is, it's over which is better.
That is the Rolling Stones.
They are the same age. Not only that, but they're all alive, and they still go on tour together.
Yup. The Rolling Stones lasted longer than the Beatles, who were so terrible that a man shot John Lennon.
Also, I listened to the Beatles with Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. They were still overrated. You're all tasteless fiends.
I gotta go with the Rolling Stones on this one. The Beatles were timeless, but they never did a song as good as Sympathy for the Devil. I also find that the Rolling Stones had a better sound to their music, being more of a rock & roll band. The Beatles couldn't really decide what they wanted to be, as they started a pop band, became a rock band and then made psychadelic music. The Rolling Stones have always been a rock band.