They were able to do more in a shorter amount of time

The beatles were together a total of 10 years, give or take a couple months. Enduring the murder John Lennon, the loss of George Harrison to cancer, and yet still having their album sales at a steady incline. In a decade's time they accomplished impossible feats that very few bands have duplicated.

The Rolling Stones, however, have been together since 1962 to present day. Sold more than 200 million albums worldwide.. the beatles had 107,000,000 albums sold in America alone.

43 Top 40 singles, including 8 #1's... compared to the beatles' 15 #1's

With an audience of more than 300,000, their July '69 free concert in Hyde Park was England's largest public gathering since V-E Day...The Beatles, on the other hand, had to call of touring due to unruley fans admist the chaos of beatlemania

 Rolling Stones were Inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame (1989) ...the beatles were inducted a year earlier (1988) 

The Rolling Stones, after 40 years of recording and touring, still giving satisfaction,.. Here's the main point of this argument: The Beatles were only together a total of 10 years, and without touring, writing, or recording any new music they still have been giving, in my opinion, twice as much satisfaction than the Stones.  
RELATED ARTICLESExplain
Matt Doherty
Beatles v.s. Stones
The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones
They were able to do more in a shorter amount of time
"Enduring" Lennon's murder
Lennon and Harrison's deaths
More #1's on the billboard charts
More influential
Record Sales
Stones are still touring
Graph of this discussion
Enter the title of your article


Enter a short (max 500 characters) summation of your article
Enter the main body of your article
Lock
+Comments (0)
+Citations (1)
+About
Enter comment

Select article text to quote
welcome text

First name   Last name 

Email

Skip