The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

File: 1482438138166.png (358KB, 552x543px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 552x543px

>>70322343
Woah OP, such an original meme you've come up with.

The Beatles went through immense changes over the course of 7 years and knew when to pack it up.

The Rolling Stones have been playing the same music for 50 years and won't stop until they're dead.

>>70322935
this is what people that have never listened to the stones think

>>70322980
i was about to post the same thing.

>>70322980
>>70323009
This is what people who are ignorant to facts think.

>>70323272
ever heard of brian jones?

File: 1482363118641.jpg (25KB, 533x609px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 533x609px

>it's another thread comparing a generic rock group to one of the most influential band of all time

>>70323344
>>70322980

the stones would win the fight

This wasn't even a comparison when both bands were active. Decades of shitty dadrock by the Stones ontop doesn't enhance the debate in their favor.

easily the rolling stones

the beatles le inovation meme has to stop

>>70322935
>rolling stones didn't go through immense changes

dude did you listen to ANY of their albums except for the 2-3 most famous ones?

>>70322416
It's such a meme that when there was a strawpoll on this topic on /mu/, both bands got equal number of votes

But yeah, let's call it a "meme" ;^)

>>70325008
/mu/ is a bunch of out of touch contrarians, more news at 11

Beatles bust up the stones so hard that they're still crying about it, end of story.

>>70323294
ever heard a stones record from after 1970?

Most Beatles fans appreciate Stones and most Stones fans appreciate Beatles. Why does it have to be one or the other? You guys are pathetic, stop fighting over this.

>>70325136
ever heard of Mick Taylor?

File: b.jpg (107KB, 400x593px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 400x593px

>>70323294
Brian Jones was the real genius of the Stones.

>>70326214

>>70324654
This. The Beatles were the kings and The Doors were doing the Stones better than the Stones.

Beatles broke up, Morrison died, and suddenly the Stones didn't have competition anymore.

>>70322343
>Beatles made music entailing at least 30 different genres
>Among the groups that opened up popular music to new and interesting possibilities
>The effect of Sgt Peppers' production approach is still felt in the music world to this day

>Rolling Stones made music only within the realm of psych rock and blues rock
>Restricted the full potential of popular music by being responsible for every shit "rock band" ever since their inception
>Their approach to making basic bitch music can still be felt to this day where rock's now "dead" because of them and the bands they influenced

File: 1438943489350.jpg (144KB, 803x688px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 803x688px

>>70326363

>>70326433
Not an argument

>>70326477
What's the point in arguing with someone as deluded as you?

>>70326503
>deluded as you?
Where did I post something deluded?

At least The Beatles knew when to quit. If Stones quit after Exile there might be an argument, but since they kept making shittier and shittier music it's tainted their discography.

>>70326503
I mean he is right. If we're talking experimentation, The Beatles win by a landslide. Velvet underground is my favorite group from back then, but even I understand that The Beatles were more influential than them.

The Beatles were able to experiment and successfully perform in a number of genres while still making great music and keeping their compositional standards high.

Both The Stones and The VU could only do their thing really well.

>>70326641
I disagree, while the Beatles were more experimental, the velvet underground could still do some stuff differently at times, VU and Nico is completely different compared to the self titled Velvet Underground

File: [unseaths chainsaw].jpg (124KB, 565x457px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 565x457px

I prefer The Doors.

>>70326698
>the velvet underground could still do some stuff differently at times
>VU and Nico is completely different compared to the self titled Velvet Underground
The later is not really what they are noteworthy for. As pop musicians and songwriters, they were just alright. As electrified folkies, they were fantastic.

>>70326641
But what does experimentation have to do with which band was better? Okay, I do agree that Beatles should be appreciated more because of their innovations and contributions to music and I sure do love listening to them but I listen to music with my ears and to my ears the Stones had always been better and more enjoyable. I guess I just dig that blues rock / hard rock sound much more. I get the impression Stones are pretty much ignored on /mu/ with most people having probably listened to Exile and LIB 2 times and that's it. Have people that complain about Stones 'not experimenting enough' even listened to Their Satanic Majesties or Some Girls or Bridges to Babylon? I guess not.

>>70326785
>>70326785
You have a point, and I agree they are amazing folkies

>>70326612
I think hundreds of millions people would disagree with your shitty opinion.

The were both great bands at the end of it, albeit quite different ones.

However I maintain that the only thing the Rolling Stones truly bettered the Beatles at was live performance, but the Beatles lost interest in that by '66, mainly because their shows were so raucous they could barely hear themselves and because due to equipment/gear issues their newest music was becoming economically unfeasible to translate to the stage. Regardless, the Rolling Stones pushed onward and continued to be a premier live band for ages. I can't discredit them for ultimately being the better live band.

As far as pure creativity is concerned it has to go to the Beatles though. While both bands did their fair share of tributes particularly in their early days (like most artists do) the Beatles seemed to cling much less to their influences and it allowed them to branch out more.

Even though the Stones were arguably a more tight-knit focused band with Mick Taylor and Jagger/Richards wrote most of the songs, I feel like Brian Jones was always their best catalyst for branching out and brining other sounds into the equation. I'm not that familiar with this part of Rolling Stones history so maybe someone could clear it up for me but the notion I always got was that Jones was ousted from the band because he was too wild and erratic, but I suspect another thing was also that he was too interested in branching out when Jagger/Richards wanted to mainly play blues-infused rock n' roll.

>>70326363
>>70326641

What are all these "genres" you talk about? I'm missing something for sure.

>>70326818
>But what does experimentation have to do with which band was better?
Well, if that's what you cherish and thinks what makes a band better, then it's very important. Is it about pushing yourself creativity? Or just playing white guy blues for 50 years?
>but I listen to music with my ears and to my ears the Stones had always been better and more enjoyable
Why?
>I guess I just dig that blues rock / hard rock sound much more
So... you are biased. Why bother comparing something you like to things you don't like, in hopes of finding some truth?
>Have people that complain about Stones 'not experimenting enough' even listened to Their Satanic Majesties
That's my favorite Stones album. But they themselves and most of their fanbase shun that album as garbage. it's regarded as a failed experiment. Which is a reason I say they were really good at just doing what they do.
>Some Girls or Bridges to Babylon
Is it really relevant to compare these albums from 1978 and 1997 when both The Beatles and VU broke-up in 1970?

No it's not.
>>70326830
And The Stones were better performers.musicians than either beatles or VU.

>>70326939
VU put on some legendary live performances. Literally got kicked out of a club for playing too long.

>>70326935
rock, pop, skiffle, folk, folk rock, sunshine pop, psychedelic rock, acid rock, vaudeville, proto-metal, proto-EDM, raga-rock, jangle-pop, baroque pop, etc.
>>70326954
Legendary only because it was long and loud.

File: 1483052157943.jpg (33KB, 600x528px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 600x528px

>>70326939
>Stones were better performers than VU

>>70326983
Not an argument.

>>70326973
It was something unique back then when VU started to perform. I think that's why Andy Warhol took them under his wing in the first place. They were unconventional in both the recording studio and on stage

>>70326939
>Is it about pushing yourself creativity? Or just playing white guy blues for 50 years?
>Is it really relevant to compare these albums from 1978 and 1997(...)

>>70326973
Something the Stones lacked in my opinion

both are absolute shit. let's stop pretending they're good

>>70327015
I agree. And that's why they were great.

But as musicians and performers, The Stones had em beat.
>>70327041
What did they lack?
>>70327034
What are you trying to say?

>>70326906
Totally this, Stones stomp Beatles when it comes to live performances, why is this often forgot when comparing the two of them?

>>70327060
>>70327060
Uniqueness

Is that even a word?

What about The Who vs Stones for live shows? They feel more similar in what they were doing on stage.

>>70327112
Oh I see, you are agreeing with me. Yeah.

Unless being really great at your one chosen craft is unique? idk They became the quintessential rock band archetype so they must have
>>70327083
I just said it though
>>70327145
I was just thinking this a second ago. I'd say The Who trump The Stone for musicality and performance, and on a compositional level. But they are less consistent.

>>70326939
You are taking music too seriously. Music is not a scientific debate.

>but I listen to music with my ears and to my ears the Stones had always been better and more enjoyable
>Why?

Am I supposed to explain to you why my brain gives me better sensation when listening to Stones? Maybe because I was born that way?

>So... you are biased.
You don't say?

>>70327060
>What are you trying to say?
You say that Stones have been playing the same thing for 50 years but when I gave examples of albums that prove they didn't always play the same thing, you dismissed them because of being released post Beatles break-up.

File: fuck em.jpg (137KB, 660x360px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 660x360px

>>70322343
Both are trash. If the Velvet Underground aren't your pick for the most influential band of the 60s, get better taste.

>>70327233
>You are taking music too seriously. Music is not a scientific debate.
Then stop discussing it. Go away and lay down alone in your bedroom and get your feels. Don't discuss it. No one cares what your favorite is, it's boring conversation.
>Am I supposed to explain to you why my brain gives me better sensation when listening to Stones?
Yes. Otherwise it's useless trivia not relevant in a discussion.
>You say that Stones have been playing the same thing for 50 years but when I gave examples of albums that prove they didn't always play the same thing,
In response to the argument of comparing the experimental tendencies of each said band. Did you forget what we were talking about?

>>70327327
>most influential band of the 60s,
Is objectively measurable as The beatles
>get better taste.
Subjective and thus not relevant to the previous point.

>>70327406
Ok kiddo

>>70327433
Not an argument.

File: slaughter you.jpg (42KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 800x587px

>>70327327
I'm disappointed that posts like this are true feelings and not just an attempt to get (you)s. It would be like saying the sky is green and expecting to get away with it.

File: Frog Laughing Increasingly Harder.jpg (408KB, 756x800px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 756x800px

>>70322343
>Rolling Stones are tied with the Velvet Underground as best band of all time

>tvu
>good

who /mick taylor/ here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DVu7TCDgaY

>>70328659
>>tvu
>>good
What's bad about them?

>>70322343
Which band recorded Tomorrow Never Knows?

There is your answer.

File: paul-mccartney-died-in-1966-face-1_2015-11-19_18-40-37.jpg (26KB, 659x447px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 659x447px

>>70322935
Yeah. Mostly because Paul died though.

>>70328699
unmusical trite

>>70328732
>unmusical
How so? It's literally music.

>>70328750
it's garbage. the original hipster band. anti-music

how lou reed ever became a famous musician is beyond me

he never had an interesting melodic idea in his entire life

This thread just made me realise I'm too old to be here

is this the best guitar playing ever?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b72_9jSXETg

>>70328766
>garbage
What's garbage about it?
>hipster
Not relevant
>anti-music
See >>70328750
>he never had an interesting melodic idea in his entire life
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MPnZ3AOlto

>Strawberry Fields Forever, arguably the greatest psychedelic song in history
>Tomorrow Never Knows, the most "ahead of its time" song ever released, sublime psych trip
>Helter Skelter, the first heavy metal song ever recorded, heavier than anything the Stones ever managed
>Norwegian Wood, the first use of eastern instrumentation in a western rock song
>Rain, one of the most influential drumming performances ever seen in psych rock
>I Feel Fine, featuring the first intentional use of feedback in a song
>A Day in the Life, one of the most important moments in the development of what we now know as rock music today

How can anyone argue that the Stones were more influential or more innovative? It's absurd to be quite honest. I like them but even they have always admitted that The Beatles were light-years ahead.

The Beatles even wrote the Stones' first single, for crying out loud.

>>70328978
I've been watching the Beatles anthology and it's so funny to see Mick Jagger behind the bunch or in the crowd in 20+ scenes. I get a kick out of that. Like the Beatles biggest fans were the Stones.

>>70329119
Exactly, they were no fools. They were well aware of the calibre of band they were being compared with.

>>70329119
>>70329137
They were also friends. Brian Jones played on a few Beatles songs and Paul and John sang on a Rolling Stones song.

>>70327327
I can see thinking they were better than the Beatles but more influential is ridiculous.

>>70326973
>folk
>poto-edm
>acid rock
>proto-metal

no. also, there were other rock acts dabbling in other genres that didnt spread themselves so thin

File: 1483412043873.jpg (165KB, 669x1004px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 669x1004px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QvMcQ2Eejo

>>70322980
If it's not broke don't fix it