stones or beatles?

This is probably one of those age long questions, but who do you prefer?

I must say im not a huge fan of either, but i definitly respect their music.  Plus the fact that it played such a major role in a lot of peoples growing up, and that kind of music is always awesome.  Of course i dont really have either of there music as some sort of milestone in my life, seeing as i wasnt born until 1983.  But heres my thoughts on the two.

I probably know more Beatles songs then i do Stones.  My dad listened to a lot of beatles and had a lot of their vinyls.  I feel however that the Stones rock more.  There music is way more rock, and Mick Jagger is a true front man.  Lennon and Mcartney were great writers, but not much of front men.  Seeing old footage of their shows never made me want to get up and dance. 

Another thing i will give the beatles, is that all of them (excluding ringo) were excellant musicians in themselves.  All did well on their own side projects.  Lennon wrote some of his best songs after the beatles, paul and george wrote killer songs after too, plus the sweet band travelling willburies.  On the flip side, i cant see Jagger rocking without Richards, they seem to be too much of a team. 

A decision is tough, so i will have to break it down this way.  As a band i prefer the Stones to the Beatles.  However, as far as muscians on themselves, the Beatles were awesome.  Mick is one of the best front mans of all time, and Keith has some of the best riffs.  Both are great in their own ways, my personal flavor would just tend to turn more to the Stones.  Who else besides Aerosmith can continue to rock even after years of bodily abuse, thats gotta count for something.