The age old debate....

File: tumblr_mt3dk5zDx61szdxeoo3_400.gif (672KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

672KB, 400x300px

Oh no, not again

I give the Beatles this much. They quit when they should have instead of hanging on decades past their prime/

Th 8ge old deb8

>>74981354
there's no debate. the stones are shit

beatles DESU

>>74981354
Hmm hard one. On one hand, The Beatles are the best thing to happen to popular music. On the other, lol jk the Rolling Stones are fuckin garbage.

File: lemmypoints.jpg (868KB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

868KB, 2060x1236px

"The Rolling Stones were a bunch of coddled momma's boys who went to college and then moved to London to live in squalour and gain cred. Not that I didn't like some of their songs, but they could never touch the Beatles for wit, harmony, melody, songwriting, sense of humour, or presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger's dancing. The Beatles, they were gear."

>>74981354
Who fucking cares they're not even in the same genre

>>74981426
>The Beatles are the best thing to happen to popular music

You spelled Bob Dylan wrong.

>>74981380
>hanging on decades past their prime

No, that was saved for Paul McCartney's solo career.

>>74981457
>Who fucking cares
You for coming here and caring enough to make this post.

>>74981500
I cared enough to say who fucking cares I don't care about the actual debate also not an argument

>>74981354
The Beatles were more innovative in the studio but the Stones were better musicians.
>>74981488
See this is what newfags actually believe

All post-Exile Stones is garbage except for Some Girls, but then all post-1972 former Beatle member albums are also garbage, so...

>>74981518
Yet you keep bumping this thread so more people can come and care while stay in the thread you so dearly don't care about. Not only contributing more to this but reinforcing why people care.
Just get out of here you big baby. You're not helping yourself.

>>74981536
Some Girls basically sucks, Goats Head Soup is about half garbage and half good

>>74981589
*staying

>>74981354
the stones make rock n roll

the beatles make bubblegum pop for little girls

>>74981447
weird how true this is. the beatles were hardcore then brian cleaned their image. the stones were college boys who acted rock n roll. theyre both good though

>>74981589
Still not an argument

File: christgau1med.jpg (18KB, 400x266px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 400x266px

Goat's Head Soup [Rolling Stones, 1973]

Except for the spavined "Dancing With Mr. D" and the oxymoronic "Can You Hear The Music", these are good songs. But while Mick Jagger's delivery has always been indolent, here I actually catch him nodding off between verses. Normally, without trying to be tight, the band jumps into a reckless, sweaty coherence. Here, they hope the licks will stand on their own. Only on "Starfucker", the most outrageous Chuck Berry throwaway of their career, does the band take off from where they started. B

It's Only Rock and Roll [Rolling Stones, 1974]

When I listen closely, I can hear enough audacious jokes, catchy licks, and arresting bass runs for two albums. I also hear lazy rhymes, indolent phrasing, and two sides that start at a plateau and slide downhill from there, as well as a song about Father Time and a title track that appears to mean more than it intends. Or do I mean more than I intend? B-

Black and Blue [Rolling Stones, 1976]

More blatantly imitative of black-music rhythms and styles than any Stones album since December's Children, and also less original (if more humorous) in the transformation, this nevertheless takes genuine risks and suggests a way out of their groove. Lots of good stuff, but the key is "Hot Stuff," pure Ohio-Players-go-to-Kingston and very fine shit, and the high point "Fool to Cry," their best track in four years. Diagnosis: not dead by a long shot. A-

Love You Live [Rolling Stones, 1977]

As a Stones loyalist, I am distressed to report that this documents the Stones' suspected deterioration as a live band, a deterioration epitomized by the accelerating affectation of Mick's vocals. Once his slurs teased, made jokes, held out double meanings; now his refusal to pronounce final dentals--the "good" and "should" of "Brown Sugar," for example--convey bored, arrogant laziness, as if he can't be bothered hoisting his tongue to the roof of his mouth. His "oo-oo-oo"s and "awri-i"s are self-parody without humor. This is clearly a professional entertainer doing a job that just doesn't get him off the way it once did, a job that gets harder every time out. C+

Some Girls [Rolling Stones, 1978]

The Stones' best album since Exile on Main Street is also their easiest since Let It Bleed or before. They haven't gone for a knockdown uptempo classic, a "Brown Sugar" or "Jumping Jack Flash"--just straight rock and roll unencumbered by horn sections or Billy Preston. Even Jagger takes a relatively direct approach, and if he retains any credibility for you after six years of dicking around, there should be no agonizing over whether you like this record, no waiting for tunes to kick in. Lyrically, there are some bad moments--especially on the title cut, which is too fucking indirect to suit me--but in general the abrasiveness seems personal, earned, unposed, and the vulnerability more genuine than ever. Also, the band is a real good one--especially the drummer. A

>>74981731
>It's Only Rock and Roll [Rolling Stones, 1974]
>When I listen closely, I can hear enough audacious jokes, catchy licks, and arresting bass runs for two albums. I also hear lazy rhymes, indolent phrasing, and two sides that start at a plateau and slide downhill from there, as well as a song about Father Time and a title track that appears to mean more than it intends. Or do I mean more than I intend? B-

I remember in one of his columns, he complained about shitty mid-70s Stones songs like Fingerprint File and how the band also decided to be faggots and play them live.

Come on, Fingerprint File is a cool song. Especially that 70s porno funk riff.

IDK, I never quite liked Keith Richards' tone. Maybe because I don't much like that country music guitar kind of sound.

>>74981642
>the beatles make bubblegum pop for little girls
The Stones would have done this if Mick Jagger had had his way, because he's the pop/dance guy while Keef is the rocker.

>>74981751
>>74981731
Ah yes, lazy mid-70s Stones, when they were awash in cocaine and hookers and it took punk rock to give them a wakeup call.

The mixing on their albums went to shit after Mick Taylor left, IORR especially is a fuzzy mess.

>>74981536
You forgot Band on the Run asshole

>>74981447
Lemmy, when he was a kid, saw the Beatles performing in the Liverpool club days so he knew they were the real stuff.

File: 114743307.jpg (290KB, 1280x1280px) Image search: [Google]

290KB, 1280x1280px

This and Exile are best Stones.

exile>any eatles album

I love the Beatles, but it's the Stones. The Beatles did a lot of great songs, were fun, diverse, likeable, but they never made an album as good as Exile on Main Street. And then there's Some Girls, Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, Sticky Fingers... I'll take those albums over Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper's any time.

Anyone have the image thing of Keith Richards quotes where he shits on every other band in the world?

>>74981612
Every Stones album up to Start Me Up manages to be interesting, even the filler tracks are not without their charms. After that however, it's just product and doesn't even feel like the same band anymore.

When I was in high school I was going through your typical teenager's love affair with the Beatles, and I bought Abbey Road and listened to it for the first time and hated it. Today I love it, but back then I was such a supreme dumbass that I was sitting there hating it and then "Maxwell's Silver Hammer" came on and I was like "Finally, the good shit."

>>74982237
wtf? complete opposite for me. i grew to appreciate the 'bubblegum' stuff when i got older

>>74982300
<shrug>

>>74981354
Paint It Black is catchy and Keith is iconic as fuck Beatles are fucking annoying and John was a wifebeater. Not that hard.

Too bad the Stones are cringy as fuck being in their 70s and still pretending to be badass rock stars.

The beach boys

File: Lick.png (155KB, 382x401px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 382x401px

Mmm. Apples.

>>74982314
>Not separating the art from the artist
ENOUGH

The Beatles. You could make a Beatles playlist for drinking on Saturday night and for relaxing in bed hungover on Sunday morning, and they'd both be great.

>>74982515
In music and film both seem too close to do it. The artist is part of their music.

I'd say the Beatles' cool factor has held up better over time while the Stones have been laughed at for being washed up dinosaur rockers for 25+ years now.

>>74982641
That's more an artifact of the Beatles quitting in 1970 and not performing live when they're aging bags of bones (Paul's solo career doesn't count).

>>74982693
paul doesnt act like a rockstar though. hes a normal family man who happens to play music.

>>74982641
Not to say every other dadrock band hasn't done it, but the Rolling Stones have long been the prototype for comically ridiculous past-their-prime rockers.

>>74982693
I live in Seattle and Nirvana are still considered cool here while Pearl Jam are just laughed at by the kids as silly dadrock. Probably again because Kurt Cobain died in his youthful prime and we never had to see the middle aged version of him poodling around onstage.

>>74981530
Yeah, the stones were better musicians, but the Beatles superior songwriting makes me like them much more.

>>74982235
Bridges to Babylon is the worst Stones album bar none. If nothing else, it's the nearest thing there is to a completely pointless Stones album with no reason at all for being.

>>74981488
>>74981380

Are you meant to just disappear off the face of the earth and do nothing for the rest of your life after your peak years?

Also, it's The Beatles and it isn't even remotely close.

File: noel-gallagher.jpg (116KB, 980x1471px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 980x1471px

"Everyone has a finite number of good songs in them and I'm not an exception. Paul McCartney, one of the finest songwriters of the 20th century, has written nothing but manure for over 25 years. Rock stars over the age of 30 do not produce important material."

File: C3QnepbUoAEWIuP.png (170KB, 489x762px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 489x762px

>>74981354
there is no debate. Rolling Stones output isn't very good at all. They got stamina but The Beatles are incomparable

No shit you can make amazing albums when you give up touring and spend 16 hours a day in the studio every day for 2-3 months perfecting an album.

>>74983280
Paul is still a way better songwriter than Gallagher

File: 1200px-Robert_Christgau_02.jpg (172KB, 1200x797px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1200x797px

Stop the Clocks [Sony/BMG, 2006]

One of the many things I never understood about this band is just where the Beatles were. The wit, the ebullience, the harmonies, God, just the singing...uh, the songwriting? Cotton Mather made me understand that when Oasis say they love the Beatles, they really mean the post-Help!, pre-Sgt. Pepper Beatles, but that excuse doesn't fly because A. I fucking love the Beatles from start to finish and B. that stretch includes Velvet Revolver and Rubber Soul, so comparisons are only valid when you come up with songs at least as good as...uh..."We Can Work It Out"? Instead, Oasis, meaning loudmouth bro Noel Gallagher, write songs that resemble the Revolver-era Beatles in momentum and thickened texture, but not in depth, wit, or charm, and then add arena swagger in the size of the drums and bigged-up vocals. This band-selected 18-song compilation captures their sonic moment as fully as anyone needs. My one gripe is that they left off the first album's opener "Rock and Roll Star". If there's one song that sums up these bigheads' message to the world, it's that. B+

>>74981396
this honestly.

Literally The Who

>>74981354
The Stones ripped off the Beatles so the choice is obvious.

>>74983749
>writes an entire paragraph shitting on Oasis
>still gives the album a B+

>>74983876
this

>>74981447
Lemmy is right. I also lost a lot of respect for the Stones when I realized most of their career was made up of chasing trends. They were a white blues band when that was cool among middle-class kids, then they switched the a more Beatles-ish sound when they got big. After Sgt. Pepper, they tried making psychedelic records and eventually Keith met Gram Parsons and got into country rock, which they ended up sort of sticking with. They even recorded a disco album for fuck's sake.

>>74981354
Wings > Beatles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stones

>>74984371
>They even recorded a disco album for fuck's sake

>one track designed for maximum commerciality on an album almost otherwise consisting entirely of rockers

My dad said that a lot of people didn't like the Rolling Stones back in the day.

>they can't play, they sound like a bar band
>they're all about money and cult of celebrity, it's not about the music
>they're douchebags who charge hefty ticket prices and act like assholes to the fans

>>74984907
Problem with the Stones is that they were always media darlings who hung out with celebrities and had their nuts licked by rock journalists.

As for them not being able to play, this is unfair, they always had the best groove bar none. I guess a lot of the people who said they couldn't play were metalfags who thought you weren't a good band if you didn't sound like Zeppelin or Sabbath with those nice, tight overdriven riffs.

>>74984997
Aerosmith >>>>>>>>>> the stones

>>74984719
Wings, the band The Beatles could have been!

>>74984997
Well, and bands like Sabbath/Zeppelin/Grand Funk with working class roots/fanbases got routinely shat on by the media.

I mean, shit. The bands who actually had prole origins were made out to be worse than Hitler while art school dropouts represented the true spirit of rock and roll according to Rolling Stone Magazine, Bangs, Christgau, etc.

>>74985036
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

>>74985162
Yeah dude, and it's not even close. The Rolling Stones are the most overrated product to come out of rock music as a whole.

>>74985129
Yeh but the music press all consisted of similar upper middle class art school dropouts so no shit they liked artists that were similar to themselves.

>>74985201
Keep telling yourself that. The Rolling Stones are pure joy. You'll appreciate them when you mature. Hang in there! Just trying to help! :)

>>74985241
I for one am glad to live in the 21st century where we don't have to rely on a couple of faggy New York hipsters to tell us what artists we should and shouldn't listen to.

>>74984809
This.

>>74984371
As if the Beatles were never chasing trends, haha.

>>74985313
>implying Shitgau and Bangs's opinions ever actually mattered
>implying anyone in the 70s or today ever bought an album based on what Rolling Stone Mag said about it
Shit, the biggest selling albums in the 70s were rarely ever critical darlings with the occasional exception like Rumours. In fact most of the time, the mega-sellers were critically panned.

>>74984997
>>74985129
>>74985241
>>74985313

http://rateyourmusic.com/list/schmidtt/rolling_stones_500_worst_reviews_of_all_time__work_in_progress_/

Anyone wanting an epic examination of all this should read Rock and the Pop Narcotic by Joe Carducci.

>>74985369
The Rolling Stone Album Guide trashed Black Sabbath in every edition until 2004 when they finally gave them their proper due.

>>74985369
>implying anyone in the 70s or today ever bought an album based on what Rolling Stone Mag said about it

Lots of kids i knew back then.

>>74985430
>Anyone wanting an epic examination of all this should read Rock and the Pop Narcotic by Joe Carducci

It's simple. The music press has always loved punk and alternative bands because they're hipster art majors, and since metal is working class music, they don't understand or relate to it. Also the early rock journalists were mostly New Yorkers so they gave a disproportionate amount of attention to the Velvet Underground, Patti Smith, New York Dolls, and the Ramones.

Rolling Stone Mag has very rarely ever covered metal other than sometimes Metallica.

I prefer the Beatles, though the Stones have great albums as well. I haven't heard an album by the Stones that has impacted me as much as Revolver, The White Album, or even some of their singles like "Paperback Writer" and "Rain". BUT, Satanic majesties, Aftermath, Between the Buttons, and Beggars are absolutely fantastic.

I have a bunch of old Encyclopedia Britannica Year Books from the 70s-80s and the music section in them almost always discusses nothing but punk, New Wave, pop, and dadrock shit like the Rolling Stones. Metal is given a passing mention at most.

>>74981354
The Beach Boys

>>74985537
It hasn't changed all that much throughout the years. For example, neither Chuck Sculdiner nor William Tolleys' deaths made the mainstream music press at all.

>>74985430
Joe Carducci took a pretty right wing political approach to his writing which was very different from the usual progressive left stance of most music journalists. Christgau called his book "interesting if not terribly important". A lot of the music press complained about Carducci's politics.

>>74985036
>Jairo Smith
NO

>>74981354
The age old debate of chalk and cheese.

>>74985537
And Bruce Springsteen. For god's sake, the man can't sing for shit and he can't play for shit. There's more to good music than just the artist having politics you happen to agree with.

>>74982485
underrated

If you've ever read Rolling Stone, they're actually more of a liberal politics magazine than a music magazine.

Has Rolling Stone ever actually been an influential publication, other than maybe artists "getting the Rolling Stone cover"? Pitchfork pretty much brought Arcade Fire and Bon Iver into the mainstream, as well as ruined the careers of Jet and Travis Morrison. Has Rolling Stone ever had actual influence over something?

>>74985683
Oh yeah, Carducci was super radical compared the the usual rock critics of the time.

One funny thing that i remember is from back in the 90s when i was doing reviews for a few undergroud magazines. One of the editors forwarded me thanks from a label since i was the sole reviewer that actually concentrated solely on the music.

>>74985890
Older dude here.

Rolling Stone was very influential back in the 70s and 80s.

>>74985890
>Has Rolling Stone ever actually been an influential publication
For a brief while in the late 60s.

>>74985901
>One of the editors forwarded me thanks from a label since i was the sole reviewer that actually concentrated solely on the music
As opposed to the artists' politics?

>>74986180
Used to review anything regardless of a bands personal or political beliefs. A few were rather dodgy, but music wise were quite good so of course they got good reviews.

>>74985862
>the man can't sing for shit and he can't play for shit

His politics are pretty much meh but he sure has a handle on his music.

is there a single post in this thread that cares about talking about the music?

>>74988906
Thread derailments can be fun sometimes!

>>74981642
Thought The Rolling Stones have a heavier sing than Helter Skelter

>>74989356
Doubt*

>>74981684

No one is arguing with you, you retard

Me me I'm a Beatles man

>>74984907
>they can't play

ur dad was just a fucking dunce m8

>>74981354
The Who > Both

>>74989593
The Kinks >>>>

>>74989593
>>74989709
The Fugs>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

File: 1503198414661.jpg (1MB, 2048x1374px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2048x1374px

>>74985355
yeah but they were basically making trends too, right? i mean, i don't know much about rock history of course, here take this image, free of charge, I'm wasting your time

>>74981354
the fact that

File: smoking.gif (974KB, 499x289px) Image search: [Google]

974KB, 499x289px

>>74985355
>As if the Beatles were never chasing trends, haha.
nigga, they WERE the trends, they MADE trends

>>74981530
>>74982805
better instrumentalists =/= better musicians

>>74983280
literally who

>>74981354
Are there actually people who unironically think the stones are better then the beatles?

howdy. im the sheriff of death grips being online. they online

>>74992884
Death Grips is Online

>>74981354
Both are like the Titanic film. Annoyingly overrated.

>>74993918
Nah.

>>74981354
I think it's no contest if you factor in the songwriting ability and ear for melodies alone. Beatles all the way. I could never see the Stones doing a song like Eleanor Rigby which is one of the most tragic and telling pop songs I could imagine.

>>74994643
>Moonlight Mile
>Let It Loose
>Midnight Rambler
>Gimme Shelter
>Sympathy For the Devil
etc.

It's really not a debate, Beatles never made masterpieces as good as these. If anyone proceeds and tells me how Tomorrow Never Craps, Eleanor Shitby or Gay in the Life are better songs than these, they can easily neck themselves.

File: rs-182785-3297399.jpg (51KB, 700x394px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 700x394px

>>74994948
my nigga

>>74994948
When I'm Sixty-Four is a better song than those.

>>74995222
xD

Stones without Jones are awful, easily the most overrated band in rock history. The beatles easily take it and anyone who says otherwise is a contrarian juvenile

>>74997537
Never heard of Mick Taylor, huh? Kid.

>>74993918
The Beatles are only slightly overrated.
Magical Mystery Tour is still underrated nowadays.

The Stones after the 60s turned into lighter-waving stadium rock.

>>74997576
after the 70s and 80s*

more precisely, starting from 1989 (steel wheels tour)

learn your history

>>74997631
Start Me Up predates 1989 by some time.

The 81-82 tour was the last one where they were a real band. After the reunion at the end of the 80s, they just turned into a karaoke act.

>static Greatest Hits setlists
>guitars pushed to the back of the mix
>the emphasis put on Mick Jagger's dancing
>all songs played straight like the record with no improv or extended jamming

>>74981731
Fuck this guy for not only giving Dirty Work an A, but writing an entire fucking essay about this album that even diehard Stones fans have disowned.

>>74997701
I don't know anything about Dirty Work desu. Why is it bad?

Rolling Stones, only because of this song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luK1dQx5GR4

>>74997725
that's a cover

>>74997710
The Stones were actually broken up during the mid-80s and everyone going off on abortive solo careers. A contractual obligation forced them to get back together to record Dirty Work, which was basically a bunch of songs about them wanting to kill each other and like the previous album they put out (Undercover), it was never toured. They did get a big hit single out of it though.

So basically, it's an embarrassing album made by a band who were at each other's throats and generally regarded as a career nadir.

>>74997744
I know, it's an improved version.

>>74984809
Actually, Emotional Rescue was their disco album.

>>74997744
>implying Stones aren't the world's best cover band

seriously, take this song for example which was originally a slow, boring soul song and they turned it into a sugary, dreamy, bouncy, mellow gem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnqH7W4me9o

Dadrockers please leave

>>74998343
>>>/r/music

>>74985561
AFAIK Mick Jagger said that Between the Buttons is shit and that Backstreet Girls is the only good song on there.

>>74998630
BTB was recorded when the Stones were going through some really awful shit. It seems to me that Mick just can't separate the music from the goings on in his life at that time.

which one's the best:

BtB
BB
B&B
B2B
aBB