They're better than The Beatles and The Beach Boys.

I disagree.

>>68230491
I'd say the beach boys but I think not the beatles just because the beatles discography is tighter

the stones only have like 4 good albums

when Brian Jones died, quality dropped like a stone

>>68231853
Quality sure did roll down hill.

>>68231853
That's just wrong though, they literally made the best albums of their career right after kicking him out.

But yeah, they can't compare to The Beatles.

Kinks = Beach Boys > Beatles > garbage > Rolling Stones

too manly for the nu males of this board desu

>>68232078
Why do even people take in consideration The Kinks for God's sake, the beatles was the best and off the 60's, period

>>68232168
>singer acts like a massive fag
>manly

>>68232078
stones > beatles > beach boys > eagles > faces > kinks

>>68232551
>Mick Jagger
>a massive fag
If one guy has had his fair share of absolute 10/10s it is Jagger

>>68232551
>band's logo is a mouth giving cunnilingus
>doesn't believe EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of that band got mad puss

keep dreaming kid

>tfw ywn live in a french mansion, fucking your 10/10 german wife, making music and taking drugs

Beggars Banquet is better than the white album and every Beach Boys album besides Pet Sounds/SMiLE but both bands are better than The Rolling Stones. They also definitely tried way too hard, moreso than The Beach Boys post-1966, and that's saying something. But they are still up there. Exile is overrated. Everything before that album is great. They are more consistent than The Beach Boys in total but the best stuff by The Beach Boys (and that is like 3 CD discs worth of material) is leagues above anything The Rolling Stones ever did.

The Beatles are the best band ever and Pet Sounds is the best album ever. The Rolling Stones are just a great band that should have stopped making music after Exile (or maybe Some Girls).

>>68232775
Abbey road is the greatest album ever

And The Kinks are amazing but supremely overrated. They only have two classic albums and a string of great singles. Everything else is not worth the time (ESPECIALLY the early albums - even Face to Face is full of filler). It is perpetuated by revisionist alt classic rock sympathizers who want to pretend that a band was better than The Beatles but they are not even in the same ballpark.

>>68232795
If you like Paul McCartney diddies sure. It is not even in the top 5 Beatles albums (probably number 6 though).

>>68232818
At least The Kinks were taking music to new levels and paving the way for Punk. The Stones were taking music back a decade and turning it into generic blues rock.

>>68232838
Both bands made way for punk. Both are extremely important. The Velvet Underground definitely copied The Rolling Stones way more than The Kinks (e.g. "There She Goes" blatantly rips off their version of "Hitch Hike").

You also have to realize punk is not the center of the universe and in fact 'punk' has generally been regressive music that tries to back to a simpler time of white people playing three chords on guitars (Ramones and most of the 'punk' acts that came before though were originators/revolutionaries though so they get a pass - everyone else NOPE). The best punk acts are the ones who left their comfort zone and added things like black music, electronics and disco to their sound (Talking Heads, Blondie, Minutemen, Gang of Four, Joy Division/New Order, The Cure, The Slits) and genuinely moved music forward or the ones who focused on the craft of songwriting (Wipers, The Replacements, The Smiths, even Adolescents and Black Flag, etc.).

>>68232838
The Rolling Stones also did some crazy shit, especially from 1965-1968. They only get the bad rep because of the stuff they put out after Brian Jones died, but when he was leading the band he spearheaded some true innovations.

They were also at least willing to admit they copied The Beatles, whereas The Kinks blatantly started ripping off The Beatles around "See My Friends" and Face to Face (as well as capitalizing off their image by copying it completely alongside that of The Rolling Stones) but Ray Davis had the gall to badmouth Revolver in the press even though Something Else by The Kinks is a pure clone of it. There is also a reason why Village Green sounds like it was recorded in 1965 but was released in 1968 - they emulated trends rather than create them (save the initial dirty singles with those raw riffs - that was new but gave way more to metal than punk). They were truly amazing songwriters and made some of the best music of the decade. But their importance is overhyped.

Lou Reed and John Cale also idolized John Lennon, Brian Wilson, Bob Dylan, and Phil Spector. The 'punk'/Pitchfork narrative is a total lie designed to deny credit to "uncool" artists (mainly by people whose parents were baby boomers, and who are now, in fact, dad-aged themselves).

Alt is the new dad rock. It is wholly mainstream and is used to silence other forms of expression that do not fit into its mold (thing that might be too pop, 'old-fashioned' or scary - real emotions or sounds that remind white people too much of other music). And the most important pop music has almost always been made in generally non-white fields: R&B/soul/hip hop/dance (save the occasional Beatles or Brian Wilson or Nirvana that truly alters the landscape).

No one is going to care about or remember your mediocre noise music within the next two decades. Noise/abrasiveness in composition has not been edgy since the 1940s, and in rock music since 1966-1969. It is an overplayed trope at this point that people use to milk the experimental card and get white street cred when the real talent lies in true technical innovation and craft.

>>68232949
when did the stones ever admit to copying the beatles

and after 68 they sounded nothing alike anyway. stones 100x better than beatles

>>68233052
I am pretty sure in multiple interviews/books with different members that I am too lazy to look up right now.

All it takes is one listen to Their Satanic Majesties Request to realize that though (still an underrated album).

>>68230491
Shit taste.

>>68232575
>>68232605
He literally fucked David Bowie

>>68231853
yeah and what the beatles have like 1 or 2 (Revolver and Rubber Soul) good albums.

Whats your point?

>>68234963
>yeah and what the beatles have like 1 or 2 (Revolver and Rubber Soul) good albums.
They have like 5 or 6 depending on millage

>>68234963
>englands greatest hitmakers, aftermath, between the buttons, get your ya yas out, beggars banquet, let it bleed, sticky fingers, exile on mains street, it's only rock and roll, some girls, tattoo you

11 good albums from the stones

>revolver, rubber soul, sgt pepper, abbey road

4 from the beatles

>>68234974
I dont know. Sergeant Pepper doesn´t do it for me, the White Album is a fucking fuzzy carpet of an collage, which actually was a reaction to Frank Zappas double Album "Freak out". I may include Abbey Road, because it´s pretty chill. But on the upper surface there is only Rubber Soul and Revolver left.

It´s so funny, that nobody ever recognized that the Beatles literally made an entire album that is called "For Sale" and they literally sold out their fans talking crap about world peace etc., which is the epitome of a maximum pop dellusion.

>>68234999
yeah i would go with this recommendation.

>>68235026
>doesn´t do it for me
Not what we're talking about. Try again.
>White Album is a fucking fuzzy carpet of an collage, which actually was a reaction to Frank Zappas double Album "Freak out"
This is retarded and wrong.
>that nobody ever recognized that the Beatles literally made an entire album that is called "For Sale" and they literally sold out their fans talking crap about world peace etc
This is the maximum idiot delusion. Please research things before you open your mouth.
>>68234999
Embarrassing

>>68235089
beatles never went beyond experimental pop. stones explored rock, country, blues, funk, disco, pop, experimental pop, etc

>>68235183
>stones explored rock,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGLGzRXY5Bw
>country,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD-bB3R1HSQ
>blues,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoKXCtkBufQ
>funk,
See: Savoy truffle
>disco,
See: Tomorrow Never Knows

And this was all within the span of one album, what it took The Stones 20 years to do.

>>68235304
slapping a violin on a typical beatles marching tune is not a country song

even then, doing one or two songs in that vein is not akin to exploring a genre. and you have to do it WELL, which the beatles did not, even in the limited capacity of their attempt.

>>68235364
>slapping a violin on a typical beatles marching tune is not a country song
Slappign a slide guitar on a typical Stones acoustic tune is not a country song
>doing one or two songs in that vein is not akin to exploring a genre
Logic applies to Stones as well.
>and you have to do it WELL
which the Stones did not, even in the limited capacity of their attempt.

>>68235364
Oh I guess only the Stones qualify as REAL country, right?

>>68235304
>disco,
>See: Tomorrow Never Knows

kek, you are such an idiot, it hurts.

>>68235446
How so?

>>68230491
For once I agree. A band with real energy

File: pf.jpg (75KB, 500x503px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x503px

>>68230491

>>68235403
>playing mad libs with my comment because youre too stupid to construct an actual rebuttal

it's over, pal.

>>68235456
it´s a psychedelic song.

Listen to Delia Derbyshire, Daphne Oram and Silver Apples, they broke the ground for disco music.

The Beatles had nothing to do with that.

>>68235516
Sounds like you had a flimsy argument to begin with if its equally as valid when reversed.

Try again.

>>68235542
How so?

>>68235558
listen to it.

>>68235543
>equally as valid

except it wasn't. none of the points are supported when you try to reverse it on the stones

the stones did countless numbers of blues songs, a good portion of beggars banquet is country, along with a few songs from let it bleed. exile, stick fingers, and its only rock and roll are pure rock/blues, their early work was pop and experimental pop, their later work included plenty of disco and funk. beggars banquet, let it be, sticky fingers, exile, some girls, and tattoo you encompass all the genres i mentioned and are all critically revered as landmark albums. and that's only 6 out of 20+ albums, many of which were also solid.

beatles early work was pop, their later work was experimental pop, with a few rock tracks liek Get Back and Come Together adrift in a sea of pop.

just give up, kiddo

>>68235403
dude

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YRdxHHFKvQ

the stones actually DID country songs. it's not like the beatles' typical songwriting with a violin added in makes it country.

>>68235664
one of my fave songs

mick taylor had the perfect touch for lead guitar. not too imposing, but he had chops and could let it ring when he needed to (see Sway)

>>68235659
>except it wasn't
Of course it was. The Stones were really only good at being a rock band. Any time they deviated form their norm, they embarrassingly fall flat (their disco music is atrocious, their experimental pop was an embarrassment). The Beatles, on the other hand, could pull of a number of genres successfully. They were never as good of a rock band as The Stones, but they could at least do that.
>the stones did countless numbers of blues songs
Skinny white guys playing the blues? Try again
>beggars banquet is country
See >>68235403 Not country
>their early work was pop and experimental pop
They stuff ripped off from The Beatles and then failed, and then pretended not to exist? Yeah sure.
>their later work included plenty of disco and funk
Embarrassing tripe.
>critically revered as landmark albums
Oh, if that's your rubric, so are With The Beatles, A Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, White Album and Abbey Road. That is an indisputable fact, regardless if you like them or not. That is more classic albums than the Stones have, by your own account.
>>68235664
I think the words you are looking for is Americana or Southern Rock. this is not Country.

>>68235762
well, if they only played rock, it was the bluesiest, country-est, most swinging, unique, grand version of rock and roll ever to grace this earth, and i've never heard another band come close to creating what they did in their prime

i think we can agree that the beatles were a pop band, the stones were a rock band, and they both experimented and pushed the boundaries of their respective genres.

Some Girls is their best album. Prove me wrong.

>>68235847
>bluesiest
Not really. Listen to real blues like Memphis Minnie or Muddy waters
>country-est
Not really. Listen to real country like Hank Williams or Jimmy Rodgers
>unique, grand version of rock and roll ever to grace this earth
lol

>>68235913
>doesn't understand adjectives

>"wow, this is the loudest firecracker ive ever heard!"
>not really. listen to a real loud noise like an atomic bomb

>>68235954
>my opinion is...
Not relevant

>>68236014
you're right, your opinion isn't relevant.

>>68236037
I never stated my opinion.

>>68236049
and I didn't state an opinion in the post you were replying to when you mentioned an opinion.

>>68236066
>it was the bluesiest, country-est, most swinging, unique, grand version of rock and roll ever to grace this earth, and i've never heard another band come close to creating what they did in their prime
It is an opinion because you've framed the "success" of the band in terms of what you've heard.

>>68236078
Ok, but you replied with some weird misinterpretation of how adjectives work.

Music doesn't have to replicate its inspiration to successfully incorporate the stylistic qualities of the inspiration into the new work.

>bluesiest rock
>not really. try listening to muddy waters

well muddy waters didn't play rock, so why are you making that comparison? the stones' rock not being pure blues doesn't make it not bluesy rock.

>>68236141
>Music doesn't have to replicate its inspiration to successfully incorporate the stylistic qualities of the inspiration into the new work
That's fine, but I question the perspective of someone with a warped view of what those adjectives mean
>well muddy waters didn't play rock, so why are you making that comparison?
Well, Disco was created most of a decade after The Beatles broke up, why would you use that as a mark against them?

There's a Keith Richards quote about how they're more books about Dylan but more babies were made with The Stones playing in the background. The same is true for The Beatles and The Beach Boys.

File: aftermath-uk-600x600.jpg (80KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 600x600px

my favourite album by them is aftermath, also whats your fav?