Stones no question

stones no question

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=JzXG3M0AR2w
youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk1kdjk5o0
youtube.com/watch?v=a3wNopYS8YE
youtube.com/watch?v=j9R5s43KRqs
youtube.com/watch?v=vf7MrwldawY
youtube.com/watch?v=pAOQkSFTKMw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

explain

nah beatles

Sgt. Peppers>Stones Discography>Rest of the Beatles discography

Mouth eat apple. Stones win.

Full wrong.
Exile on Maint St. > Abbey Road > Rest of Stones discography > Rest of The Beatles discogrpahy.

Sgt. Pepper is the most overrated album ever tb h. It just got all that praise for that awesome album cover. The only great songs are A Day in the Life and Mr. Kite. Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds is such an obnoxious song jesus, such a cringeworthy and un-artistic concept. The Stones are so much better by the way. Exile on Main St. is better than everything The Beatles ever did.

this desu, stones have some good songs, but beatles are still significantly better

That's because you haven't listened to the Stone's albums, have you, little pleb?

> some good songs
Just "some"?
Early Stones beat the shit out off early Beatles. And Exile on Maint St. is one of the best double albums ever if not the best.

this user is wise, you could all learn something from them

No, we SHOULD learn.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Sgt Peppers gets the praise because the way the album was produced has since set a standard for how all music is recorded, produced, and mixed.

Stones, obviously

But wait, didn't the Beach Boys actually do that a year earlier with Pet Sounds? All The Beatles did throughout their career was to imitate better artists.

stones

The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as "the greatest or most significant or most influential" rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.

In a sense, the Beatles are emblematic of the status of rock criticism as a whole: too much attention paid to commercial phenomena (be it grunge or U2) and too little to the merits of real musicians. If somebody composes the most divine music but no major label picks him up and sells him around the world, a lot of rock critics will ignore him. If a major label picks up a musician who is as stereotyped as can be but launches her or him worldwide, your average critic will waste rivers of ink on her or him. This is the sad status of rock criticism: rock critics are basically publicists working for major labels, distributors and record stores. They simply highlight what product the music business wants to make money from.

Hopefully, one not-too-distant day, there will be a clear demarcation between a great musician like Tim Buckley, who never sold much, and commercial products like the Beatles.

Why not both?

>rockists

Nope. Nothing at all like what was on Pet Sounds nor Revolver nor Freak Out! Like full on legit signal processing like how we do stuff in music to this day.

>poptimists

Stones: (using US albums for early discog)

England's Newest Hitmakers - 7/10
12 x 5 - 7/10
Rolling Stones Now! - 7/10
Out of Our Heads - 8/10
December's Children (And Everybody's) - 8/10
Aftermath - 8.5/10
Between the Buttons - 8.5/10
Satanic Majesties Request - 7.5/10
Beggars Banquet - 9.5/10
Let It Bleed - 10/10
Sticky Fingers - 9.5/10
Exile on Main St. - 10/10
Goats Head Soup - 7/10
Some Girls - 7.5/10
Tattoo You - 7/10

Beatles:

Please Please Me - 7/10
With the Beatles - 7/10
A Hard Day's Night - 7.5/10
Beatles for Sale - 7/10
Help - 8/10
Rubber Soul - 9/10
Revolver - 9.5/10
Sgt. Pepper - 9.5/10
Magical Mystery - 9/10
White - 9/10
Abbey Road - 9/10
Let It Be - 7/10

the stones edge them out imo

At least the Beatles knew when to quit and didn't besmirch the name of the group by releasing mediocre shit for decades. Both groups released their fair share of great music, of course, but the Beatles were pretty consistent about it as long as they were together, can't say I feel the same way about the Stones.

But when you compare the two (both great) albums, Sgt Peppers objectively is the better album. There is no question as to it's cultural impact and the strength of the songs.

It's ironic that you mention imitation in a thread that includes the Stones as part of its main subject matter. I don't think I need say any more.

mind explaining how there is no question to Sgt Pepper's "strength of the songs"?

>muh objectivity
>muh cultural impact
>implying the Stones didn't release plenty of original material
fuck off back to rëddit

>ITT: people seriously believing that a band that did the same blues rock poppy sound is better than a band that mixed and tried everything they could with the pop format, leading to innovations and influence far beyond their or rock music's reach in general
The anti-Beatles sentiment here is hilarious. Not the ones obviously playing it for shits and giggles, but the ones who think they are too cool for school and take it seriously.

>muh innovation in pop music
The Beach Boys did it better. The Beatles did shitty tunes for teenage girls. The Stones perfected blues rock

The Beach Boys did it better for the couple of albums Brian Wilson had his marbles together for

>post literally says that Beatles' influence goes far beyond pop music
>other posts in this topic, plus countless sources on the internet documenting their innovations
>still thinking it was just about muh teenage grill tunes

The Beatles are the most overrated band in history. The argument that they somehow revolutionized the recording process has been debunked several times in this very forum. Their music is boring and innocuos, I wouldn't trade a thousand Beatles for a single Stones record

I apologise, I'm new to this board and thought it was a place for intelligent discussion about music, and not a Sup Forums-tier slanging match. I won't make that mistake again - and I doubt I'll be missed.

Also I'm reporting you to the mods for triggering me. Enjoy your ban from the internet.

>they knew when to quit
is there a meme worse than this?

They stones have millions of fans, they can still attend their concerts, still get new music from them. How is that not what an artist should strive for instead of an 'objectively good catalog' for the autistic 1 % who care about that crap?

this desu

You can't criticize the Beatles for being boring, simple pop music and then turn around and put the Stones on a pedastal when they also exemplify the simple, formulaic pop of their time. I love both groups for the record

You heard the latest Stones record?

Because their concerts are fucking sad to watch now, for one.

yeah it's pretty great
millions still enjoy them

Sounds like you're pretty new around here, cuz every time the Beatles get brought up, nobody's ever been able to debunk their approach to the recording, production, and mixing process. Even Scaruffi, the guy that's often used as a source for their "overratedness" has willfully given George Martin the credit for it.

>music is boring and innocuous
Your shitty attempts at just using "shitty RYM review" tier buzzwords doesn't achieve much here.

>I wouldn't trade a thousand Beatles for a single Stones record
Nah, Stones didn't do much for music except recycle Blues stuff that has existed for decades.

Ah you trolled me good and proper there, good work.

So is every old band ever and yet you faggots keep sucking Brian WIlson's cock

>nobody's ever been able to debunk their approach to the recording, production, and mixing process
I smell new.

do you seriously think blue & lonesome was not awesome? It's their best album since 1981, maybe even 1978

George Martin isn't the Beatles, and most of the techniques they employed were developed by someone else from the avant-garde and wrongfully attributed to the Fab Four (besides ADT)

>shitty RYM review" tier buzzwords
I'm not attempting to review their music, it's just how I feel about their teenage girl songs and faux-subversion

Fuck bands that are unable to put on a good show but still tour for the boomer nostalgiabux. The Stones released great music, so did the Beach Boys, but that doesn't mean the magic is still there.

Notice how The Beatles are brought up in every Stones thread ever. The Stones are never brought up in Beatles threads.

well at least you agree on me old dadrock bands cashing in are stupid shit, all of them

beatles fans are fucking annoying desu

Only because they picked the right band and Stones fans have an inferiority complex.

Stones fans would like to have a Stones thread now, k thanks.

They really added nothing to either the Stones music or the Blues genre. I've heard so many of these Blues cover albums that they all sink into obscurity.

youtube.com/watch?v=JzXG3M0AR2w

Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones is like asking Pink Floyd vs. AC/DC. One is a stellar musical act and the other is RAWK \m/.

t. sissy

and? why do the people on here pretend that every album is supposed to be the reinvention of the wheel?

It's a fun album, you listen to it, have a good time for 40 minutes and that's all it needs to be.

That's what the word "mediocre" generally refers to, is it not? They weren't always that.

The Beatles are the ultimate form over content band

youtube.com/watch?v=Sqk1kdjk5o0

this song is so great
Exile on Main St >>>

Nope. Every time they get brought up, the Sgt Peppers production style gets brought up. Perhaps pay attention to Beatles threads?

>George Martin isn't The Beatles
Lmao are you serious? Dude's obviously a big part of the band, he was called the Fifth Beatle for a reason. Not to mention that a lot of what he and his team implemented were based on ideas from the actual members of The Beatles. It's a team effort.

>most of the techniques they employed were developed by someone else from the avant-garde and wrongfully attributed to the Fab Four (besides ADT)
You have no clue what digital signal processing is, do you? You turn on your damn DAW, idk what music style you're making, all manipulation you do to it is based on the kind of stuff that was being done on Sgt. Peppers. Not the more primitive shit those avant garde guys or Zappa were doing. Certainly not the simpler stuff that was on Revolver or any Beach Boys record.

>their teenage girl songs
They stopped making songs catered entirely to those post-Rubber Soul with them not following the kind of trends that would allow them to create teenage girl songs.

>faux-subversion
What the fuck are you talking about? There's no subversion play with any of their music. They don't subvert like Zappa, they build on top of what was already there.

Hate on The Beatles all you want, just stop pulling stupid shit out of your ass because you just started listening to stuff outside The Beatles and just discovered Scaruffi.

>all manipulation you do to it is based on the kind of stuff that was being done on Sgt. Peppers
Kek

>What the fuck are you talking about?
All their work post-Rubber Soul: soulless, gutless white rock with a veneer of counter-culture when it's actually one of the safest, most middle-class products available at the time

at least the stones could play their instruments well

paul was good at bass though

...

ALL of their work? You've listened to The White Album yet? How about Abbey Road?

>Every time they get brought up, the Sgt Peppers production style gets brought up.
New confirmed.

>Kek
>can't come up with facts or a comeback
>being this much of a loser

>All their work post-Rubber Soul: soulless, gutless white rock with a veneer of counter-culture when it's actually one of the safest, most middle-class products available at the time
>I have no clue how pop music works
>being this butthurt that you initially listened to the Beatles only because they were "the greatest band evar!1!1" and not picking up on the subtleties that actually made them great

"Soulless" and "gutless" aren't criticisms. They were good pop songwriters with great production for the most part, and of course they're overrated, but that doesn't take away from the value of songs like Penny Lane, Day in the Life or She's so Heavy. Fuck "authenticity," good pop is good pop.

Type in the words "signal processing" along with "Beatles" or "Sgt. Peppers" on the archive site search

I've listened to all their records + all side projects, solo stuff, etc. I used to be big into The Beatles when I was a naive teen

>DUDE LET'S CASTRATE ROCK AND ROLL AND THE PSYCHEDELIC EXPERIENCE AND MAKE IT INTO AN ACESSIBLE PRODUCT FOR WHITE CONSERVATIVE HOUSEHOLDS LMAO

I hate to agree with fucking Scaruffi, but he was 100% right: the Beatles were a marketing phenomenon. Revolver is their only good record.

>can't come up with facts or a comeback
Where are your facts in the first place? They invented nothing besides ADT, you retard.

Type in Beatles + Robert Fripp

>The Beatles started out playing proto-punk rock
This is the level of delusion and cognitive dissonance most Beatles fans operate on

Of course they were a marketing phenomenon and of course what they did essentially amounted to taking something underground and making it more accessible. That still doesn't make their records any less impressive by pop standards. You don't think the Stones were trying to make an accessible, trendy product?

>believes in the tin hat "they watered down and castrated everything!" crap
Welcome to Sup Forums.

>Where are your facts in the first place?
Just read the Sgt Peppers wiki page, or google Sgt Peppers signal processing and you'll get articles, interviews, books, etc. written on it.

Too easy to counter that bait with actual facts. Get better bait or gtfo, loser.

Their music is underwhelming compared to other pop luminaires like Brian Wilson.

> You don't think the Stones were trying to make an accessible, trendy product?
Yes and no. The point is they still honed their roots. The castration of rock and roll by the Beatles and the negative influence it had on all upcoming music is a disgrace

>tin hat "they watered down and castrated everything!" crap
how's this tin hat? where's the sexual energy from early rock in the beatles. it is castrated indeed

>Just read the Sgt Peppers wiki page
You should read it again and do some research on your own, then you'll find out most of these techniques (besides ADT, as I've mentioned earlier) were already invented or developed by someone else. These are facts, loser. The Beatles are an institution built on record sales to impressionable teens and myths.

>still tin foiling it up
>it's been 50 years and he still hasn't noticed that The Beatles were doing their own thing and not trying to be the same "energetic" rock music that they have outlived as more energetic rock music from the future replaced that stuff

>cite detailed sections on digital signal processing
>user too lazy to read them and continues to repeat the same thing over and over again
So...lets play the guessing game! Is the user a young-in who just really got into his "Beatles suck" phase? Is the user a boring shitposter who is unable to come up good bait? Or is the user legitimately that delusional of a manchild?

>their own thing
Called cashing in.
Which was the same thing the Beach Boys were doing, anyway, so that's a double false hood right there.

Revolver>Exile>Beatles Discography>Stones Discography

Beatles did Rubber Soul first.
Beatles had a far larger combination of outside music genres in their music than their contemporaries like Beach Boys, Zappa, and Byrds.
Beatles were doing far more sophisticated studio work using relatively advanced technology (not even the most advanced tech though)

revolver is infinitely better than between the buttons. but satanic majesties is better than sgt peppers. i personally would choose the beatles but the stones for me didnt get interesting until satanic majesties onward, when the beatles decreased in quality after the white album.

>Beatles did Rubber Soul first.
What exactly does this mean?

>"Beatles had a far larger combination of outside music genres in their music than their contemporaries like Beach Boys, Zappa, and Byrds."
>mfw

>Zappa
Don't say stupid shit.

>Beatles had a far larger combination of outside music genres in their music than their contemporaries like Beach Boys, Zappa, and Byrds.

Gets rid of the idea that Beach Boys or Byrds beat them to the whole "pop music as art" thing.

They do though. Zappa stays within the realm of blues, jazz, classical, psychedelic, and doo wop. Zappa had less overall influences, but worked more deeply within each of them, thus the variety in song structures gives the illusion that he worked with a larger variety of outside genres. But The Beatles, while their structures were more simplistic and poppy, would put in more genres worth of influence within those structures.

>pop music as art
They didn't because this happened way before the Beatles or the Beach Boys ever existed.

>less
Nigga Zappa literally worked with all genres possible including folk, world music and whatnot
The beatles didn't even know about obscure aboriginal music like Zappa
Is this a joke? Could you at least listen to Zappa before posting?

>would put in more genres worth of influence within those structures.

such as?

Nope. You can maybe argue that Phil Spector beat The Beatles by a year with the Fabulous Ronettes album, but that was nowhere near as sophisticated as the stuff Beatles and Beach Boys would follow up with nor what changed the public and critical view of popular music the way Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Pet Sounds did.

what exactly was so sophisticated about fucking Rubber Soul?

>what changed the public and critical view of popular music
All music is art. Stop being such a pretentious dumbass.
Beatles literally just sold a lot and got the attention of a lot of music magazines who then in turn wrote about them because money is money.
Get off your fucking high horse.

Only nu-males and literal children prefer The Beatles over The Rolling Stones.

stones

Stones no question

>folk, world music
So...like The Beatles did?

Pop (in most forms of it that existed back then like baroque, swamp, sunshine, power, avant and psych, too), folk/country, soul, classical (older styles, 20th century aleatoric stuff, musique concrete, they go around), Indian music/raga rock, hard rock, psych/acid rock, space rock, heavy metal, children's music/lullaby, surf rock, blues/RnB/rock n roll, circus music, vaudeville, music hall, ska, jazz, spoken word, sound collage, experimental/avant garde/prog rock, the list goes on.

At the time it was kinda mindblowing where it became the definitive record of everything that was happening at the time (rock n roll turning into rock music, Dylan's folk renaissance, the increasing popularity of black people soul music, the developments that were just starting with baroque pop, and the eastern fascination with the Indian stuff.)

I am talking about what the public and critics said at the time, not what I personally think. Why not, instead of accusing me of being pretentious and for me to get off my high horse, you actually fucking read, and maybe do some research instead of futilely trying to argue with me?

But then, what can I expect from the typical young Beatles hater? You guys are such big losers that you can't even read my posts correctly, or even hear things that happen in music. How can I expect you guys to go through some history and learn from that? Lmao, fucking underage kids too young for Sup Forums.

Zappa did all of those and more. Dumbass.

>what the public and critics said at the time
So, nothing of relevance? People and "critics" say shit all of the time. They said it in the 15th century and they still say it now. Who cares and why is this being mentioned or even a relevant argument in anyway for the case that the Beatles aren't absolute shit?

No he didn't. Give me an example of heavy metal in Zappa's stuff, or one where he implements Indian music so well that there's as much raga action happening as western scalar stuff. Gimme a swamp pop example, too. Maybe one where he makes a lullaby.


>change the majority of people's approach to thinking what popular music is capable of, thus influencing musicians ever since
>essentially the main reason popular music criticism is even a thing at all
>nothing of relevance
Oh you Beatles-haters, when will you ever learn?

So your argument to the fact that the Beatles are sellouts is that, because they are sellouts, more people changed their minds?
What does any of this have to do with the intrinsic value of their garbage music?
Music criticism didn't change neither did people's minds.

Why do people always say The Beatles and Stones were competing back in the day? Anyone who listens to both sets can tell they were both different kinds of music. Beatles were pop and Stones were Blues and covers. The only time they got close was when Stones did their psychedelic Satanic Majesties Request.

1965
Beatles: Run for you Life youtube.com/watch?v=a3wNopYS8YE
Stones: youtube.com/watch?v=j9R5s43KRqs

1967
Beatles: With A little Help youtube.com/watch?v=vf7MrwldawY
Stones: Let's spend the night together youtube.com/watch?v=pAOQkSFTKMw

It wasn't until AFTER the beatles broke up when the Stones really hit the charts. most normies dont even know their 60s catalog

>music criticism didn't change
The existence of everything that does popular music reviews from Christgau's stuff, to someone like Lester Bangs who used to cover exclusively jazz covering pop music (though he never did Beatles), to Rolling Stones, and the stuff we have now, is all because of their influence.

>intrinsic value garbage bullshit
Who cares about that? I have already mentioned in this topic that I don't care if you guys hate The Beatles. My argument is that you guys are next level retarded to say things like The Beatles weren't innovative, or didn't change the world of music in a big way.

>sellouts
Wanna know how to make the most money? You go around touring. Even with the minor hate train The Beatles had copped at the time thus making them slightly less popular in some places, they would have made substantially more money touring than painstakingly working the records they did.

The hell did you think pop musicians mostly did both back then and today?