Why did they want to be The Beatles so badly?

Fun fact: The original 3-D version of this picture actually has The Beatles in it.

Unironically, everyone wanted to be the Beatles in the mid 60s.

File: anton.jpg (109KB, 500x485px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 500x485px

It was the 60's everyone was going psychedelic.
After that album they figured out their fans like them better as just like blues rock.

Also that album is probably directly responsible for the brian jonestown massacre

File: fish.jpg (476KB, 1000x981px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1000x981px

That looks like a mix of this and Sgt. Pepper's.

>>73143180
Who didn't want to be the Beatles?
Actually, who DOESN'T want to be the Beatles?

In the early to mid 60s, the Rolling Stones were legitimately way better than the Beatles. Then, when the Beatles went psychedelic, they entered their best period, and the Stones just happened to enter their worst period up to that point. In the late 60s the Stones entered their strongest period with bluesy albums like Let It Bleed, but the Beatles were still really strong in their singer/songwriter period, so it was kind of a wash. The Stones were still strong for the first couple years of the 70s.

>>73143778
Fun fact, they're in the normal one too you blind fuck just look at it.

>>73143855
Ringo

>>73143891
>In the early to mid 60s, the Rolling Stones were legitimately way better than the Beatles
This is untrue, btw

>>73143976
No, it isn't. The Stones had a fantastic R&B/garage sound, while the Beatles were playing really dopey AM pop songs. I can't help if you're a pleb.

The beatles could be argued to be the first boy band.
They made pop rock music and were considered the "good boys"

The stones made loud and rebellious old school in your face blues rock, and did heroin and fucked black chicks, they were considered "the bad boys"

Beatles had more variety and were more experimental, but stones are generally more pleasant to listen to. Beatles have nothing on Beast of Burden

>>73143180
the beatles were a commercially and critically successful band. you may have heard about this at some point

File: 1494687298496.jpg (42KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 200x200px

>>73143891
>In the early to mid 60s, the Rolling Stones were legitimately way better than the Beatles
naah

>>73144044
The Beatles did their fair share of drugs before they made it big. And the Beatles smoked plenty of pot during their "boy band" phase

File: PinkFloyd-album-piperatthegatesofdawn_300.jpg (26KB, 316x315px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 316x315px

>>73143180
it was the 60's OP everybody dressed like that for music

>>73144196
two completely different styles

>>73143924
triggered

>>73144044
this narrative is so frustrating considering that the stones were a bunch of more or less art school pussies and the Beatles were from the English equivalent of Compton.

>>73144259
The production is the same
Sgt pepper and PATGOD were even recorded in the same building iirc

>>73144154
They were also taking tons of amphetamines before they even released an album.

>>73144449
i meant the clothes tho

>>73144444

>>73144449
Sgt Pepper and PATGOD were recorded on the same planet holy fucking shit.

>>73144510
really makes You THAiNK

>>73143855
>Who didn't want to be the Beatles?
The Beatles

>Actually, who DOESN'T want to be the Beatles?
Paul McCartney

>>73144634
rly makes u think