Stones or Beatles?

File: Nirvana-Nevermind-publicity-photo-courtesy-of-UMG-billboard-1548.jpg (66KB, 636x421px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 636x421px

>>71577055
Seatles

the beatles

Rolling Stones are pretty garbage

Bones

Beatles had way better writing and production. Rolling Stones just added to the "rock is edgy and cool" factor that rock uses as a foundation. I'd say the Beatles are way better, but that doesn't mean we should forget about/underrate the importance of the Stones

Stones

>>71577262
Do I really need to pull up scaruffi for you?

Beatles had good albums, so I'll vote for them

>>71577055
The Kinks

>>71577055
I like the blues and country vibe of the Stones more, you can tell that they have a deep passion for american music.

>>71577761
that wasn't the question, faggot.

>>71577055
The Beatles are easily one of my favorite bands. I have never heard a Stones song that I liked.

>>71577853
bit rude

Pretty definitely the Stones

massive beatlesfag here. i've tried for years to understand the stones, at this point im starting to think they're just a singles band. i think their best album that i've heard so far is sticky fingers. their albums are just way to inconstant for my tastes.

File: 1467010564253.jpg (55KB, 957x621px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 957x621px

>>71577893
thts wht u get when u mes wth a boy wth a tude

File: between-the-buttons-us1-600x600.jpg (72KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x600px

Beatles were better

Doesn't mean the Stones weren't great though

pic related is underrated.

>>71577117
Listen to Sticky Fingers and Let it Bleed. They're actually a pretty good band

>>71577055

Stones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xbtlW16Gts