Who was better and why was it the rolling stones

Man get your normie shit outta here.

>>69313721
kys

>>69313676
Stones better singles Beatles better albums
I think we can all agree on this

>>69313676
Because the Beatles didn't write Sympathy for the Devil or make Exile on Main Street. The Rolling Stones would kick The Beatles' ass any time of day IMO.

>>69313900
>kys
confirmed normie
hiroshimoot needs another filter quick

>>69313676
mick jagger and yours lips :)

The Stones were the first real rock band.

The Beatles were just the '60s version of One Direction.

>>69314932
The Beatles wrote the Stones' first hit

>>69314037
Beatles albums were shit

>>69315417
Beatles are the first real album artist so there isn't any way for that to be true

>>69315479
It doesnt matter who did it first,its all about who did it best

>>69315688
Obviously

File: 1479831743297.jpg (45KB, 599x655px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 599x655px

>>69314058

>>69313676
the Kinks

>>69316612
this this this this

File: IMG_2339.jpg (104KB, 629x750px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 629x750px

A NEW CHALLENGER APPROACHES!

>>69314037
My Stones' top 10 songs list would contain no singles. Yes, their singles were fucking great, but so many underrated gems on their albums

the who

>>69316931
The rolling stones.

File: lel.png (184KB, 582x402px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 582x402px

>>69313676
>the mouth is eating the apple