Pink Floyd.

Also:

But for me that would prolly be Led Zep.

Queen v Pink Floyd

Genesis v Yes

Led Zep v Black Sabbath

those match ups make more sense to me

There are Stones tracks I really like. Ruby Tuesday tends to be overlooked but that is as good as any Beatles songs. Paint It Black is another I like.

Jagger/ Richards wrote The First Cut Is The Deepest which was the first solo hit for PP Arnold who of course had the prog connection with The Nice who started as her backing band.

Stones = mainstream rock garbage

Floyd = beautiful, authentic, innovative, mind-blowing MUSIC

I said mainstream garbage  (some of their earlier stuff is alright though). Anyway, Floyd and Stones are both mainstream, but for very different reasons...

A bit unfair to call the Stones garbage.

Well, it depends on your musical taste. I personally can't stand most of the songs i know from them. I know they had an earlier psychedelic/baroque phase and I've listened to Their Satanic Majesties Request which is a nice and quite underrated album. I've also listened to some really good songs from Between the Buttons. But after that earlier phase, they just became uninteresting and shallow IMO. The use of the word "garbage" was obviously an exaggeration though 

No they didn't, it was Cat Stevens.

 

No.....they are 'mainstream' for the same reason; they were both embraced by the public at at large, radio, etc.,  which made their music 'mainstream'.

The fact that you like Floyd better is a personal choice, nothing more.

 

The original poster said 'rock band' in his first post btw and while they both fall under that broad category they are like apples and oranges as far as the styles involved. To dismiss the Stones as 'mainstream garbage' shows a lack of understanding about the whole music scene , it's origins, and it's various paths.

 

Music fans love them both for different reasons...both have had massive global success and influnced thousands of musicians...both have entertained millions of concert goers...I have to give my vote for the Stones though for the fact of the sheer weight of their musical history...many people have never heard "Comfortably Numb" but everyone has heard "Satisfaction"...60's drug busts...Sympathy for the Devil...Altamont...Mick and Keith...dozens of albums...Pink Floyd are huge but they can't compete with the Stones 50+ year legacy.

thanks 

me confused! and the source of my confusion (as taken from Wikipedia)

After several years touring the United States with the Revue, she came to  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England" rel="nofollow - England  in 1966 when the Revue toured there in support of  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones" rel="nofollow - The Rolling Stones . Impressed by her powerful and soulful voice,  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger" rel="nofollow - Mick Jagger  convinced Stones  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management" rel="nofollow - manager   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Loog_Oldham" rel="nofollow - Andrew Loog Oldham  to sign Arnold to a  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_contract" rel="nofollow - recording contract  with his newly founded  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immediate_Records" rel="nofollow - Immediate Records   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_label" rel="nofollow - record label . Arnold quit the Turner band to remain in  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London" rel="nofollow - London  and establish a solo career.

'mainstream rock garbage'

That is the most hilarious thing I've seen all day. 

My personal opinion only:

Pink Floyd is not among my favorite bands; I do like The Dark Side, A Momentary Lapse of Reason, and one or two tracks from other albums, and that's about it. I'm not into the Syd Barrett era at all ..

.. but:

1. Roger Waters as a poet and philosopher has no peers in the pop/rock culture. It's kind of handy to have a guy like him as the band lyricist. 

2. IMO, Pink Floyd were the first band to use the synthetic sound for expressing intellectually complex and esthetically advanced musical ideas. Before them, the synthetic sound had largely belonged to the category of "electronic experimentation" and was only sporadically thrown in by those bands who wanted to sound 'psychedelic" without conveying any specific message.  

3. The audio-visual multidimensional experience is, again, something that Pink Floyd made into an art form in its own right. 

Bottom Line: Rolling Stones should be rated in the "most prolific bands" category (but then again, the James Last Orchestra may beat them with the musical equivalent of the 2014 Cup Germany-Brazil score). 

 

The Stones do have more  albums in their catalogue than Floyd and it can be argued that their best albums might outweigh Floyd's best  in number but their songs and albums on an individual basis aren't better in quality per se imho.

Let It Bleed or Exiles isn't 'better' than DSOTM or WYWH...they are all excellent in their own way.

 

 

1. What style of music you're looking for .

2. Who you think executed their intentions better.

Honestly, a world without either would be a very boring musical world indeed. Pink Floyd helped me get into prog in the first place, while the Rolling Stones have been part of my childhood.  I remember listening to AOL Radio at the time and was willing to miss the climax of Yes' "Close To The Edge" just so I could hear "2000 Man".

Also, The Rolling Stones "mainstream garbage"? Really?

 

Now there's a band that's often overrated.....but I'd still take them over The Stones and Floyd.