Qualified. The Beatles and the Stones, right out.
I replied Lynyrd Skynyrd. He came back with The Eagles.
I could make a case for either one, except the case for The Eagles would be a bit weaker in my mind. I doubt this is because I live in the South and Skynyrd is Southern Rock, but it could be.
As I write this, still siding with Skynyrd, but I decided to take a look at some numbers. Used Wikipedia for this, so take it however you like. I'm not so invested in this that Imma do detailed research.
The Eagles have 9 albums. They actually have more but I
Skynyrd has 21 albums, using the same metric applied to The Eagles. Only 5 went Platinum.
The Eagles had the #1 album in the US 5 times. All their albums make it into the top 100 chart.
Skynyrd never had an album hit #1 and had several that never broke into the chart.
The Eagles had 5 No. 1 singles. Skynyrd had none.
If this comparison is run straight by numbers on sales of music, it's a slam dunk for The Eagles.
If you run the numbers by the releases, Skynyrd takes the same kind of lead here that The Eagles have
On one hand, there is a volume of work. On the other hand, there is commercial success.
Which measurement deserves the greater weight? Remember these are iconic, legendary bands who put out a lot of material. The volume of work has to be considered. This is why Nirvana is not a contender. Kurt Cobain's genius on the work he generated while alive is obvious, but could he sustain that over a period of time? The Eagles and Skynyrd did.
I admit this brief research has done little to settle the issue in my mind.