In response to: Who was the better band: Beatles or the Stones (Quora Feb 2012) The Beatles achieved far more in 7 years than the Stones have done in 50. I could spend all day listing their achievements - 17 number one singles in the UK, 20 in the USA, 15 number 1 UK albums, 19 number US albums, record sales to this day, their effect on music and culture, their innovations in the recording studio (this alone could fill a dissertation), innovations in songwriting, the songs they wrote for other artists INCLUDING the Rolling Stones, their live performances paved the way for the way we view concerts today (see Shea Stadium as an example-over 55000 people in the audience which was unprecendented in 1965), their cultural and musical influence defined and inspired those who followed; not bad for 7 years! Saying that the Stones were better because they were harder edged rockers and that they had some great rock tunes simply doesn't cut it, you could say that about Bon Jovi. The Stones should not be compared to the Beatles because only someone who didn't bother to research the facts would pit them against each other. Personally I believe the Kinks were the only contemporary British act to rival the Beatles (at the time) in regards to songwriting with the Beach Boys (Brian Wilson) competing against them in the US.