The great debate

The great debate.

The Beach Boys.

The Kinks

Are you 12?

Maybe if your're a really boring person.

The Zombies

The Rolling Stones >>>>>> The Beatles

The Stones are one of the greatest rock and roll bands of all time, the Beatles just made bland pop.

The Rolling Stones just did what the Beatles did until they broke up lol

Nuff said

Nope, the Stones are more bluesy and edgier than the Beatles

Anyone who prefers the Beatles is a nu-male or a woman

stones.
nothing about the beatles interests me.

also, which band was more 'English'?

the kinks, again

>oh shit the beatles are using cool instruments let's do that
>oh shit the beatles are being psychedelic let's do that
>oh shit the beatles are no longer psychedelic and have a blank album cover with just words let's do that

Plus, John was edgier than all the Stones combined

pink floyd
can't get more English

Both were great bands, why not enjoy both and stop comparing?

The Kinks were more English than them unless you're only counting Syd-era Floyd

Seems like you don't know about the Stones post-67

They were forced to make psychedelic rock once by their label, but once they found their blues/hard rock sound they made genius albums like Exile on Main St, which the Beatles couldn't match.

The Beatles were safe and simple. The druggie haze of 70s Stones is just extremely trilling compared to boring three minute love songs
The Stones are the most American band that's not American

lel

clutching at straws there beatles hater

They did psychedelic well though.

>implying happiness is a gun, helter skelter, yer blues are safe and simple
The Beatles could make harder rock than the Stones when they wanted to.

Why can't you people just enjoy both bands?

Is it that hard to like both?

Everyone prefers one to the other.

Just like the Mothers and the Velvets and 2pac and Biggie.

I like both a lot, but the Beatles are better

Those songs are safer than anything the Stones ever did
no

Who cares though? Comparisons aren't necessary. They both did different things. Just enjoy them both and stop fighting online. It's so fucking pointless. It won't achieve anything.

All discussions on Sup Forums are pointless, just close the thread if you don't give a shit

Just kill yourself.

Reminder that you need to be over 18 to post on Sup Forums

Yeah dude only us mature adults (im 19!) can understand the intellectual posts here about Death Grips and Kanye West, fuck dadrock

I'm a hip hop fanatic but there is nothing wrong with rock music.

Oasis

Both are really overrated, but Beatles is actually good.

SKEPTA, LAD

Are you saying You Cant Always Get What You Want would have existed without Hey Jude?

The Stones wrote some great songs, but hardly reached the caliber of The Beatles.

Stones fans are always in denial.

the kinks were good and the Beatles were shit

>psychedelic trips, heavy metal, acid rock, hard rock, baroque pop, blues, folk, roots rock and even avant garde sound collages are "bland pop"
Kill yourself

Both are shit.
The Beach Boys are better

Damn nu males have good taste

Stones

not comparable plus 90% of the answers you'll get ITT are gonna be scaruffi-worshiping dorks who can't appreciate the Beatles but somehow think blues rock is so much more unique and important

Both are shit

>mfw keith

The Beatles broke up before they shat the bed with a long term slump.

The Stones went on to make "She's So Cold", a terrible song with terrible lyrics and an amazingly cringey video.

Also, Faust shits on both of them with their debut.

There's nothing great about this debate. Literally anyone with even a cursory understanding of the rock canon and/or music theory will tell you the Beatles. All the Stones did to contribute to rock music was their "attitude" which was contrived and pathetic. Their first charting hit was literally a song Lennon and McCartney wrote for them to throw them a bone. They spent their entire career copying the Beatles, then when the Beatles broke up, they made bloated mediocre whitewashed blues rock on a constant downward trend until they retired.

Oh wait, they didn't, they're still horsing around onstage at age 70-something like jackasses.

They are literally the absolute worst band I can think of in the mainstream rock canon, except maybe the Sex Pistols.

>Nope, the Stones are more bluesy and edgier than the Beatles

Anyone who thinks the Stones rocked harder than the Beatles know literally nothing about their Hamburg days. The entire band, especially John, resented the clean pop look that they had become known for.

The Kinks.

Since when is there a competition between the Mothers and the Velvets? They're completely different bands.

Stones

1) Revolver
2) Rubber Soul
3) Let it Bleed
4) Beggar's Banquet
5) Exile on Main St.
6) Let it Be
7) Sticky Fingers
8) Help!
9) Goat's Head Soup
10) Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
11) Their Satanic Majesties Request
12) The White Album
13) Abbey Road
14) Aftermath
15) A pile of rotting garbage
16) Every other album both bands released

The Kinks > The Beatles > The Who > Stones > Herman's Hermits

Why were Herman's Hermits so shit, bros?

be more retarded

Both bands are quite different. The Beatles were rooted in English pop music, the jazzy, merseybeat-ish one. Their career was just an actualization of pop music. They played around with whatever their times threw at them and rode their popularity.

The Stones were rooted in blues and rock and roll, something way more agressive than rhythm and blues and pop. They aren't bad, but blues rock/hard rock is a somewhat limited style and the Stones and all the bands they influenced basically hit the ceiling with it.

Anyways, I'd say the Beatles because I like psychedelia more than I like blues rock.

How do you feel about Between The Buttons?

I'm a big Beatles fan, but I think I might actually prefer it to Sgt. Pepper.

>Albums
Beatles > Stones
>Songs
Stones > Beatles

Beatles, easily

The stones only had a few good albums above a 7/10, and once they passed ~1975, it was all downhill

They shared similar ideas and were even on the same record label, it's like fucking over siblings

nu-male detected

If you can't appreciate the genius of the Stones you're an idiot

The Rolling Stones are better without a doubt. They were much better musicians, they had better albums, and for god's sake they had way more personality. Their live shows were spectacular, whereas the Beatles stopped doing them around 1965. Now if we're comparing their careers in the sixties, The Beatles are obviously better, but the Stones' material from the early seventies must be among the best ever made in the history of music; Exile On Main St. is way better than anything the Beatles ever done and so is Sticky Fingers.
I strictly recommend listening to those albums before judging which band is better.

no

The decision to have a white cover for Beggar's Banquet was made by Decca, who found the original (now widely used) cover as too vulgar.

I think they're fairly different and the comparison makes no fucking sense, I could see a better debate between The Beatles and The Beach Boys, or early Rolling Stones and early The Who.

Both bands are 10/10 and will be remembered for centuries to come, but I've heard their music so many god damn times I can't be bothered to willingly sit down and listen to either of these bands. If I had to chose, I'd listen to the Beatles.

are shit

>no one's mentioned The Jam
Smhtbqhwty pham

I like Rolling Stones more

The Beatles, easily

Somewhere in between. If they didn't have shit lyrics even up through Pet Sounds, and they had more than two good albums it might be a different story.

>The Beatles were safe and simple.

You know nothing. Actively ignorant.

who would you rather be

What even qualifies something as safe in your mind? The Beatles had more range in every direction than The Stones, they were far more intricate tonally, used more timbres, had more atypical arrangements and structures... What the fuck makes a song dangerous, mere angst?

>avant garde sound collages are "bland pop"
one song, wasn't even that good

Stones are underrated but Beatles for sure

You're off by like 10 years

this

>better musicians
Debatable. McCartney is probably the most talented all round instrumentalist out of the whole lot, particularly of course on bass. He wrote some of the best basslines in history (Hey Bulldog being the standout one) and crafted a unique style of playing which he became known by. He and Lennon also took instruments we all know and love and used them in extremely creative and pioneering ways, crafting entire new genres as they did so. The Stones have always been very talented musicians but that last point cannot be said of them.

>better albums
Exile on Main St is their best work (one of the greatest rock albums of all time), but it is still not on the level as Revolver, White Album or Abbey Road in terms of creativity and boundaries broken, as well as of course songwriting. Exile and many other Stones albums took well known and established musical styles and pulled them off superbly, but albums like Revolver literally changed the future of popular music forever.

>better personality
I do love the Stones' personality but this one depends on how you look at it. I think The Beatles collectively had one of the most fascinating personalities of any rock artist in history. There's a reason that countless books and films have been made on the subject of their inner relationships. Their clash of personalities, with the enormous ego and pretentiousness of John, the supposedly wacky Ringo, the reserved and heavily spiritual George, and the egotistical Paul made for one of the messiest breakups the industry has ever seen and some fascinating dynamics. The Stones seem funny and like decent fellas, but The Beatles had insanely interesting personalities which are still scrutinised extensively today after the death of two.

One of my favourite bands, even if Weller is a tit. On par with the Stones but way out of the Beatles' league for me.

Fuck the both of them. Give me The Dave Clark 5 any day!

both suck

>The Beatles were safe and simple
>three minute love songs

I know you haven't listened to The Beatles beyond Here Comes The Sun and Yesterday, so open up the streaming service of your choice, and play these songs:

>Tomorrow Never Knows
>Helter Skelter
>Strawberry Fields Forever
>A Day In The Life
>Happiness Is A Warm Gun
>Revolution 9

I love the Stones but you're embarrassing yourself here. Those songs I just listed are among the most daring, experimental and innovative songs ever recorded by any artist. Listen to them, come back to the thread, and see if you still actually believe those statements.

Is it even in discussion? By the time the Rolling Stones started to compose their own songs, the Beatles had already released their first own songs album (A Hard Day's Night, which is an absolute pop masterpiece). Hell, McCartney, Lennon and Harrison started to compose when they were like 15 years old or less, even Please Please Me contains great songs composed by them, on the other hand, Rolling Stones' debut is simply a cover songs album.

>Those songs I just listed are among the most daring, experimental and innovative songs ever recorded by any artist.

I'm on The Beatles side of this argument, but that's not even close to true. Not that experimentation in and of itself is what qualifies something as good in the first place. What made The Beatles so great was that they balanced out the experimentation with finely crafted songwriting. They were pioneers in that sense, as well as recording techniques, but judging purely on experimentation there are plenty of people that did stuff more atypical than that (again, not that that's even a measurement of quality at all).

And not only they managed to combine experimentation with finely crafted songwriting, they've done it in a way it could be digestible and enjoyable massively. Norwegian Wood is the best example I can think of right now

Well okay, my point was that those are among the most creative and innovative songs ever made which have attracted mainstream attention. The most experimental artist ever, whoever that is probably sounds terrible. The songs I listed were as you say a combination of experimentation and solid songwriting, and they influenced more songs and albums than anyone can care to try and list. As far as experimentation and innovation that actually made a difference to popular music goes, The Beatles are on top.

stones are better musicians Beatles are better composers

highly doubt that

My ass. McCartney and Harrison kick the shit out of any of the Stones, easily.