They were two different bands playing different types of music. There's no question of one being better than the other - both were equally good and have been equally enduring.
My favourite Beatles song isn't by Lennon and/or McCartney; it's George Harrison's 'Here Comes The Sun'. However that's one of the great things about the Beatles repertoire - there's something for almost every taste.
Back in the '60s, the Rolling Stones seemed far too aggressive for my tastes. I preferred the more melodic tunes of the Beatles. But now I've come to love much of the Rolling Stones' music.
Also, despite Paul McCartney's fame and financial status, it's a member of the the Rolling Stones who has proved that he's a far better musician. I refer, of course, to Bill Wyman.
While I agree with the comments that the music of both groups isn't directly comparable as they are different in style, I personally prefer listening to the Rolling Stones over the Beatles.
I saw both bands live. The Beatles were good musically, and they were very good , but the Stones were fantastic live, so much more atmosphere and 'edge'. I have been a life long Beatles fan, but as a live act you can't beat the Rolling Stones!
The Who were good too!
"Bony Maronie" yeah a Larry Williams song.
i saw American Idol (unfortuanately) they had a
Rolling Stones week.
i didn't know half of the songs - but i do like some of them "Paint it black" would be politically incorrect these days i suppose.
The Beatles - i also like some of their songs.
but don't favour either of them & i was around in the 60s.
give me some "Surfin music" - Beach Boys
the Beatles and the Stones started out pretty similar, playing American-style rock'n'roll and blues - the Beatles reflected British influence more, the Stones were just US wannabes. I saw the Stones in 1965, I think, and they were a blues band. (I missed the Beatles, one of the big mistakes of my life.) The Stones did have hits in the 60s but didn't really emerge from the Beatles' shadow until the Beatles split.
The Beatles were miles better songwriters too - like Chris my favourite is Here Comes the Sun and it wasn't even by L&M
As I understand it they were politically different too. The Beatles were a leftwing co-op with equal shares for all. The Stones were a Mick-Keith company (they took all the songwriting royalties too) and the others were just employees - even Ronnie Wood didn't become a partner till about 10 years ago.
As the general tone of the thread advises, you really can't say one band is 'better', they are different for so many different reasons.
I remember the media furore when both bcame famous, and it was the 'cleancut' Beatles v. the 'dirty' Rolling Stones, when Lennon was often found fighting outside the Cavern, and Jagger was an LSE student.