The Rolling Stones mean a lot ,to me; in relation to growing up - coming of age - etc. but In terms of pure professionalism & individuality I would say The Beatles because their music wasn't a defined genre such as Rhythm & Blues- as copied by the Stones.It was Merseybeat & that term became synonomous with 'whatever it was that the Beatles played'.Which in the early days - no one could capably define.Hence unique.
The Stones for me..they were more of a live band, with more flavor I think...too bad they are still going though the Beatles were more unique and recording oriented, but I would hate them if it weren't for George Harrison, plus their early stuff really annoys me
The Beatles, by far. The Stones were incapable of communicating nearly as many emotions and styles (and when they attempted, it seemed forced). Mick Jagger and Brian Jones had definite talent for what they did, but nothing on the level of Lennon or even Harrison. I think The Stones would have been better if their career had stretched from about '65 to '71, instead of continuning on to the modern day with over 25 years of mediocre albums and every-other-year 'farewell tours.'
what a stupid debate... also posted like a million times here... they're both great, and none is better, it's a matter of personal taste. Personally I prefer The Beatles, but the Stones are my second favorite band.
I prefer The Beatles... They always make me smile and remind me of some happy things... I like Stones, too, but not in the same way.