The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

If you say the rolling stones then you're a retarded contrarian.

dubs confirm

The Rolling Stones were probably the most impressive set of talents to come together in Britain before the Soft Machine: decadent vocalist Mick Jagger (who distorted soul crooning and turned it into an animal instinct), rhythm guitarist Keith Richards (who took Chuck Berry's riffs into a new dimension of fractured harmony), multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones (who penned their baroque and psychedelic arrangements), and the phenomenal, funky rhythm section of bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts. Steeped in the blues, the Rolling Stones redefined the rock performer, the rock concert and the rock song. They turned on the degree of vulgarity and provocation to levels that made Chuck Berry look silly. Arguably the greatest rock and roll band of all times, the Rolling Stones revolutionized each of the classical instruments of rock music. After them, not only rock music but western civilization itself will never be the same again.
vs
THE FACT
That settles it.

File: exile.jpg (174KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 600x600px

>>69339518
no dubs and incorrect tastes

File: lola.jpg (39KB, 493x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 493x480px

hey guys, will u rate my girlfriend?

File: Macintosh.png (152KB, 420x345px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 420x345px

I bet that apple is delicious.

I don't care about either of these bands

bu-bu-but muh influence

I don't give a shit.

>>69339668
Well what do you like?

>>69339668
if we're talking influence, the velvets and the beach boys surpass both these bands

>>69339698
actually so do Pink Floyd

>>69339798
the kinks and the zombies about split even

>>69339698
>beach boys
>surpassing the Beatles in terms of influence

>>69339628
i would be honored to rape your girlfriend

>>69339822
beach boys influenced experimentation within pop far more than the beatles, who's main contribution to popular music was just further popularizing the typical pop song structure.

>>69339880
Who told you this and why did you believe them?

stones are better

dubs confirm

The Beatles drive me up the fucking wAll I'd choose the Rolling Stones

>>69339668
This. There are no new artists worth a damn who've been influenced by either of these bands.

all the music posted in this thread sucks except the beach boys

>>69339630
Kek

>>69339628
That is man.

>>69339487
At first I thought it was my thread from yesterday
Rolling Stones >>>>>>>> Beatles
Beatles are considered at better because the average person has a mediocre/shit taste in music

>>69339487
The Beatles were more well rounded/versatile.

The Stones wrote better rock n roll though.

File: 13166783_636161186545983_222384602_n.jpg (19KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x480px

>>69339880
lol i jealous of u the dumb man the freeman

early stones is better than early bealtes
later 60s stones is worse than later beatles

after that there's exile, some girls, and 'angie' so i guess the stones win

>>69339487
The Rolling Stones have RIFFS
The Beatles have dumb haircuts and DUDE LSD LMAO.

>>69341651
maybe you should explain why faggot

I vote for David Bowie.

Stones
Trips confirm

>>69341739
Prince

>>69339487
The Beatles > The Kinks > The Who > The Beach Boys > The Zombies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rolling stones

>>69341826
fuck the kinks and especially fuck the who

File: 1463514259769.jpg (55KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x447px

>>69341826
>Putting The Kinks and The fucking Who over The Beach Boys and the Stones

>>69341881
Nice pleb opinion Mr. Stones fan ;)

>>69341807
No I said 'David Bowie'...

.....
You just gave me an idea for a thread.

>>69342030
link it if u make it

>>69341692
ass backwards senpai

>>69341826
This, except swap the Kinks and the Who.

>>69341826
The Beatles > The Stones > The Kinks > The Beach Boys > The Who >>> The Zombies

>>69342097
Nigga, The Zombies = The Beach Boys >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All those other bands

>>69342044
Here ya go senpai

>>69342212

>>69341826
Almost son... I'll help you
The Beatles > The Beach Boys > The Zombies >The Kinks > The Who > The Rolling Stones
That being said I like all of these bands [spoiler]Never listened to to much of the Stones' material though[/spoiler]

>>69342404
that's why you think any of those bands hold a candle

Beatles > Beach Boys > Kinks > The Who > Zombies > Stones

>>69342433
My dad used to listen to The Beatles, Wings, The Who, The Kinks, and the Rolling Stones EVERY DAY when I was young. Of those bands, I always hated when he played the Rolling Stones.

On a roadtrip from Chicago to Las Vegas and back during college, my best friend and I listened to The Rolling Stones from "England's Newest Hit Makers" through "Dirty Work" and I loathed it all. Luckily the following year when we did Chicago to LA, we listened to Beatles/McCartney & Wings stuff.

i can't believe we all forgot about the doors and the velvet underground

>>69342622
I will update my ranks

The Beatles > The Kinks > The Who > The Velvet Underground > The Beach Boys > The Zombies >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Doors > The Rolling Stones

>>69339487
considering that proly every other artist around the same generation as the beatles consider them influencial to THEIR music, I would say this much..
does it really matter? :D

the velvet underground > the rolling stones > the beach boys > the beatles > the zombies > the kinks > the who > the doors

it seems like most of the people dissing the rolling stones don't really listen to them and are just assuming they're commercial based on their popularity

>>69342563
>>69342842
That was me, where do I fit in? I really dislike The Rolling Stones. I think it's mostly due to the fact that their music is really unremarkable.

>>69342622
>>69342685
If we're just going to add bands like this then
Big Star >>>>> Everything else

I hate the beatles , Lennon was better solo. The wrong McCartney died sounds terrible but it's true

>>69345787
Wings > Beatles > the other solo beatles

the kinks definitely had the best early period, their singles in 64 and 65 were unbeatable

Beatles are probably better and for people into them they probably made more meaningful songs but I like the Stones a lot more and listen to them quite often.

I think
Aftermath
Beggars Banquet
Let It Bleed
Sticky Fingers
Exile on Main Street
Some Girls

are perfect albums

lots of good stuff on the others too, even the disco kinda stuff is good

>>69345799
It's arguablly true

File: macintosh.jpg (26KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 500x500px

>>69339630
That's not a Macintosh apple though

>>69339560
The Rolling Stones were fucking cool and awesome riffs and mixed rock and blues.

However, The Beatles shifted the paradigm of music.

>>69346056
>Beatles shifted the paradigm of music
They robbed everybody else off just like what grimes or kanye does today. They were total sluts, it's why george regretted it all

>>69346056
better yet, best song vs best song? a day in the life vs you cant always get what you want?

>>69346119
Tomorrow Never Knows vs. Shine a Light

>>69346119
a day in the life
norwegian Wood
in my life

those are the three greatest beatles songs. for the rolling stones, there are too many great ones to list but you can't always get what you want is not among them

File: tumblr_o0l9wfXo111r81w1do2_500.png (729KB, 500x600px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 500x600px

stones had personality and edge, even in their worst albums they had great singles that easily compete if not btfo anything by the beatles

File: tumblr_o1blgppR8l1ttrl9jo1_500.jpg (146KB, 500x498px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 500x498px

>>69346178
i nominate Miss You, Jumpin' Jack Flash, and Sister Morphine

>>69346275
>Happiness is a Warm Gun
Provide a Stones song better than this

>>69346471
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stpRIyHHw8g

>>69346552
Nope. Happiness is a Warm Gun is still better

File: Meltingnazi.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>69346552
>this is better than Happiness is a Warm Gun
>this is better than any Beatles or Beatles related song

>>69346434
i hate miss you

Unpopular opinion: The Beatles are a singles band, The Rolling Stones are an album band.

Every Beatles album is extremely uneven, and every Beatles song works as a stand alone. The Rolling Stones, in contrast, have lots of great, consistent albums, but few great singles, and many if not most of their songs are strengthened when grouped together with other songs that share their theme. There aren't really any Beatles albums that are as good as Let It Bleed, but there are way fewer amazing standalone Stones songs than Beatles ones (i.e. While My Guitar Gently Weeps, A Day in the Life, Blackbird)

>>69339487
Beatles and Stones both began as derivative shit in their respective genres (blues/rock and roll for the Stones, pop and rnb for the Beatles) then Beatles rode the psychedelia train, did some nice pop albums and called it a day. Stones did some hits, and the rest was the same derivative shit for decades on end

>>69339487
If the Rolling Stones stopped after 1969 I would pick them, but all the embarrassing and awful shitty music they made after is what makes them a joke.

>>69348041
But half of their best music was after 1969

>>69348041
Come on, they were still good through the mid 70s

File: original_464.jpg (454KB, 638x638px) Image search: [Google]

454KB, 638x638px

Every word John says in this interview is right. Mick Jagger is a faggot who copied the Beatles and insulted them because he was jealous
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-b3fRisu50

>>69339518
Honestly I think I prefer Let It Bleed to any Beatles album.

>>69339798
Honestly I think more people are influenced by Pink Floyd than the Beatles at this point.

>>69339518
>>69340180
>>69341786
faggots

>>69348170
Pink Floyd was directly influenced by The Beatles.

>>69348170
This isn't how influence works baka

The basic fundamental influence of the Beatles was the forever changed relationship between commercially successful mega bands and the idea of artistic merit, integrity and musical experimentation.

The Beatles weren't the first, though they were close and they weren't the best, though again they were close, what they were was a band that wound up in just the exact right spot to forever change the world.

>>69348157
That's just common sense...but I think The Beatles were more consistent (not necessarily good but there's a clear progression to their albums whereas the Stones have some of their best work couched in with their worst which turns people off)

>>69343291
>IF YOU WANT IT BABY OH YOU CAN CUM ALL OVER ME
If you can't appreciate classy lyrics like this sung by a drunk manwhore over a bluesy piano riff, you'll never like the Stones (and you probably hate yourself)

File: keef8.jpg (154KB, 1226x851px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1226x851px

i honestly cant tell if these threads are just bait
or if people actually dont like the greatest rock and roll band in the world


then i remember that people on this board unironically like charli xcx and shoegaze, and i understand that theyre cuck azn boys for the most part who are too poor and ugly to post on /fa/

File: their-satanic-majesties-request-600x537.jpg (35KB, 600x537px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x537px

>>69339518
I'm a retarded contrarian. I always had a suspicion.

>>69339560
Based scaruffi.

>>69340380
>implying there are new artists worth a damn

also, it's kind of like "we stand on the shoulders of giants". Actually, it IS that. You can argue that new artists don't have DIRECT influence, but the beatles and the stones undoubtedly influenced an artist that influenced them, or influenced an artist that influenced the artist that influenced them.

I don't even get this comparison desu.

The Beatles were a band of many sounds and songwriting styles.

95 percent of the Rolling Stones catalog is DUDE BLUES LMAO

Stones will get a slight edge for being more soulful, and I tend to gravitate more towards that, but the Beatles got them beat in pretty much anything else.

Rolling Stones def have some good songs
Can't you hear me knockin
Paint it Black
Gimme Shelter
Rocks Off

Tons of good songs actually

it's just, they weren't INNOVATORS. They were white kids doing black music, and Zep just happened to shit all over them not long after they came around. Stones were content with copying the Beatles moves, and doing their best impersonation of black music. Never reached the heights the Beatles did because they were content with not reaching for a higher spot.

The Beatles are the intellectual, while the Stones are the visceral.