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.