The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

>>70829479
I made a David Bowie V Prince thread a couple months ago and Bowie ended up winning by a landslide.

>>70829542
i disagree with that consensus

>>70829582
and since i'm the only 1 here...

>>70829542


As ground breaking as David was, Prince was a way more talented musician.

>>70829479
Prince was more talented because he played all his instruments and put them together to make a song, although I still like David Bowie better.

Rolling stones had like 4 decent albums, one of which was cover songs. After that, their quality tanked. Their only real contribution to music was bringing blues rock to the mainstream and giving it feedback, plus their one psychedelic album(which frankly, is vastly overrated)

Beatles innovated through numerous genres including country, punk, international/sitar, pop, classical, etc, an had a consistently good to great discography throughout their careers

dont forget, the stones were created for being the antithesis to the beatles

I generally like Bowies stuff more. But I could split hairs all day over specific songs by each artist. One for the B team
Now Beatles vs Stones, that really depends.
Stoned = Beatles
Drinking = Stones
Funny how that works.

Beatles > Stones

But pet sounds and even the unfinished smile project shit all ober both of them

The Beatles were better, but the Stones are also great.

Favorite Beatles albums: Help, Rubber Soul, Revolver

Favorite Stones albums: Aftermath, Between the Buttons, Satanic Majesties

Beatles > Stones
Prince > Bowie

>>70830199
>the velvet underground are better than either of them

FYFY

People really like satanic majesty? Thought it was rubbish and I like the stones quite a bit

Stones > Beatles > Bowie > Prince

>>70833264

I did.

I can get why people wouldn't like it though. After all, the Stones basically never looked back after it.

>>70829479
let it bleed made me think the rolling stones were trash, especially because people seem to think gimmie shelter is a good song