But you`ve missed the most obvious point. This thread isn`t about Mick Jagger being the best frontman in the world. It`s about the Stones being better than the Beatles. Yes it is only opinion , but the Beatles didn`t have a frontman , so to me that makes Jagger a better frontman than anyone in the Beatles by default.

Besides isn`t it obvious by the title of this thread that this is going to be a one sided arguement. Tell me i`m wrong , tell me i`m an ******* , come up with a list why the Beatles were better show some PASSION ... don`t just say 'well it`s your opinion' like some bleeding heart liberal & leave it at that.

sorry but im not going to call you a ******* just because you think somebody is better than somebody else- that isnt the way i work.
however, isnt the fact all 4 members of the beatles were able to act as frontman a point in their favour? and isnt the fact they have the biggest british selling album of all time another point? and isnt the fact they had 28 number ones a mark of one of the finest bands ever? i know your saying the stones were a better rock band- and rock bands dont care too much for chart success- but the success the beatles had is unequalled and i just think that alone makes them the best british band in history. your talking about woman associated with the groups and playing gigs at gunpoint but to me that is comnpletely irrelevant to who was the best band.also, what does the solo exploits of starr, McCartney and jagger have to do with the BANDS themselves? and anyway, even if we were talking about solo success, id like to see jagger produce something anywhere near as good as imagine or war is over (if you want it). who cares if starr did some kids narration. plus, in my opinion, the messages the beatles conveyed in their songs had a much more profound effect on society than anything the stones did. "let it be", "all you need is love", "come together"- all huge messages to society. finally, you say the beatles didnt touch on sex and drugs etc, "come together, right now, over me" <---quite obvious what that suggests. and most of their latter stuff had drug referances- hell, half the staff was written because of drugs.

All that I was trying to put across is that, just because you may think that the Stones are better doesnt mean they are. Again lets look at what The Beatles have done to our society opposed to the Rolling Stones. The Beatles are one of the most influential bands in history, so I could care less about what any of you other people think about them.

Well if realism is what you're looking for, then yes, the stones win. However, I like the meaning behind the lyrics to be more subtle, at which the beatles were masters, basically sll of their lyrics were a metaphor for something else, which is something I really admire. A lot of the stones' lyrics on the other hand had more more of a hit-you-over-the-head-with-a-blunt-object kind of message. It's incredibly easy to figure out what the stones are singing about, and personally I think it's better to have more subtle lyrics like the beatles, which is why I place them above the stones in that respect, well actually, in every respect. Although, I do love the stones, their riffs and solos are mindblowing, but overall, I think the beatles had more going for them. None of us are right, because we both have very different views of what's good, so it's no wonder that you find the stones better and I prefer the beatles. As well, the beatles wrote about a lot of subjects that were far deeper than "sex and drugs", eleanar rigby, let it be, tons more were about comments on society, huge moments in their personal lives etc, the list goes on and on.

its all a matter of opinion. i personally like beatles better.

Yay LedZepStu & ledzeppelinrulz! It totaly IS a matter of opinion. Obviously, everyone is different, and we therefore see the world through a different perspective. Why should YOU tell everyone why one thing is better than another? Who are you to chose that? I'm not saying that the rolling stones are better than the beatles, or the other way around. I, having my opinion, do love the beatles much, much more but I'm not going to diss the rolling stones because of that. I also found it strange that one of your points included the stones writing about drugs, sex and rock. First of all, why should that make anyone any better? Secondly, how would you possibly explain the beatles songs such as, "Why don't we do it in the road", "Norwegian Wood", "Yesterday", "Helter Skelter", and did it ever cross your mind of what the acronym of "Lucy in the Sky with Diomonds" is? Before you have such a strong opinion on something, please don't be so ignorant and check out the facts....

Helter Skelter is ok , the rest of those songs 'in my opinion' are crap.

I have checked the facts , I like the Rolling Stones better.Thats the only fact you need to know.

Alright: good for you!

I must have misinterpreted what you were saying.

Have a *lovely* day!

:D

I love how you use all of the Beatles' pre-1966 materal in judging.

Keith and Mick the coolest guitarist and frontman ever? Hahaha, no seriously.

I love them both, but since The Who own them both this is irrelevent.

Rolling Stones Beat There A$$