The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

>>71054577
McCartney, obviously.

the stones and lennon. his solo work is mostly better than the beatles

>>71054606
/thread

>>>/reddit/

The Rolling Stones were the first real rock band.

Obviously The Beatles, even the Stones admit it

The Stones were very good at their peak but didn't make anything half as good as Revolver

>>71055029
exile is better

The Beatles were visionaries, The Rolling Stones were not. Imagine them recording something like Tomorrow Never Knows.

>>71054577
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art.

exile is better than anything the beatles ever did

>>71055455
Good album but mainly just on the strength of its consistency. Loads of really good songs, but not really any absolute masterpieces. The Beatles produced so many masterpieces, all of them SO forward thinking and visionary.

>Happiness Is A Warm Gun
>Tomorrow Never Knows
>Strawberry Fields Forever
>She Said She Said
>Norwegian Wood
>A Day In The Life

The list goes on.

>>71055182
Except they attempted to with Their Satanic Majesties Request.

>>71054577
Why do you discuss this seriously? Might as well discuss AC/DC vs Guns'n Roses

>>71055989

pretty good album desu

>>71056849
and they were all trippin acid when they took the photo for the sleeve

>>71056203
AC/DC no contest

Not even memeing

>>71056203
guns n roses for consistency, AC/DC for funness

>>71054633
Actually, the first ones to actually rock hard were The Who and The Kinks

>>71055557
I always personally enjoyed the Stones more but I can't really argue with this.

>>71054577
Lennon and McCartney were already accomplished songwriters by the time the Stones got popular, and the Beatles relied on significantly less covers than the Stones did early on.

>>71055054
Exile is better than nothing

>>71056203
Thunderstruck is the most rockin' song ever recorded