The Rollings Stones is the worst music.
The Rollings Stones is the worst music
everything before beggars banquet is pure shite, i'll give you that
Agreed. Why they've ever mentioned in the same breath as The Beatles is beyond me.
t. plebs
Do you have a mirror in your house?
What you don't like G C D for 12 songs? Fuck outta here
They're the most important rock n' roll band of all time
So?
it's literally the exact opposite of the thing you said
If they're not your bag that's fine
But by no means are they bad
No. The Beatles have outsold The Stones by several orders of magnitude. I'm trying to be as unbiased here as possible, so I'm afraid this is just incorrect.
That's true, but the Stones did far more for rock n' roll and the blues than the Beatles ever did.
1964 - 1966
decent garage rock/pop
1966
really good garage rock about being a male chauvinist
1967-1969
experimental garage rock about sex and the devil that is the best music the stones will ever make
1970-1972
southern country rock that's still pretty interesting
1973
the last year the stones are good
1974-1975
bigass stupid dadrock
1975-1980
a mixture of really bad dadrock and disco
1980-now
holy shit how can a band suck so bad for so long
The only place I think the stones sound good is when I'm at a bar trying to hit on some fat chick because the hotter but still a 5 girl turned me down and I'm still in the battle of getting some pussy that night so I keep buying her drinks and putting dollars in the jukebox because she knows the chorus to "Start Me Up" and I can use as much levity in the situation as possible because my conversation ain't doin' it.
Some Girls is great though
Yeah, they kamikaze'd those genres into the fucking ground. Nobody listens to either one anymore because how uncool they are due to the dinosaurs who perpetuated them. The Beatles broke up at their peak.
*David Bowie
>they kamikaze'd those genres into the ground
o i am laffin
no one that wasn't from mississippi or chicago even knew what the blues was until the stones came along. rock n' roll was a provincial genre until the stones came along.
whatever you say dad
This is not true
the Beatles got good in 1963, and it took the Stones until 1966 to get to their creative peak, but then the Stones stayed good until 1973
so in the end both bands were good for the same amount of time
The Beatles had the best musician (Paul McCartney) and also the worst musician (Ringo). The Stones had the better frontman, but the Beatles had a better guitarist. Of course the Stones had better riffs.
Honestly I think it's a wash.
>no one that wasn't from mississippi or chicago even knew what the blues was until the stones came along. rock n' roll was a provincial genre until the stones came along.
>what is 50s rock and roll
>who is Elvis Presley
>who is Chuck Berry
Wew lad
>it's a wash
user, it's not even close. Even Wings were better than the Rolling Stones.
Wings is underrated but so is Mick Jagger's solo stuff.
...
Wings was awful too. Even Paul said recently that he hated wings. It was a step backwards as far as his legacy with The Beatles. It was a change back to uncreative formulaic honky tonk bullshit. Blech.
Same with the Traveling Wilburys. So much wasted potential.