So which is it, Sup Forums?

So which is it, Sup Forums?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=OKrbK3rZVak
youtube.com/watch?v=tTpL-lVhXkM
youtube.com/watch?v=B51A6bcMeDY
ok.ru/video/29226568216
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Stones for Rock music

Beatles for Pop

Stones, Ron Wood doesn't count.

led zeppelin

Beatles didn't even last a decade. Stones have lasted over 5. No contest

Well instrumentally the Stones blow the Beatles out of the water, and no one should dispute that except maybe in the case of voice (or possibly bass guitar), but Jagger is slightly underrated by some.

Discography-wise I think they are about equal; I think maybe the Stones' golden period is slightly stronger than the Beatles' in a global sense, but desert island I might pick the Beatles because they were a little more varied.

Are you retarded?
Are you "The Music Defender"?

The Rolling Stones are objectively and spiritually superior.

I honestly can't tell if you people are joking. The Beatles are so far ahead of the Stones in every aspect that the fact that this has been a question for so long is baffling.

shut up retard

I like both, but I can always listen to the Stones, I have to be in the right mood and want to listen to Beatles albums.

Plus Keef was amazing at getting great guitar tones on studio recordings, everyone forgets that when talking about the Beatles and what they did in the studio. Lennon and Harrison could never rock like Can't You Hear Me Knocking.

>The Beatles were hard men, too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-faring town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the fucking Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles--not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.

They're doing a thing. The Beatles have been experiencing a (much deserved) resurgence on Sup Forums, and these guys can't be arsed to slog through a discography that doesn't make them feel superior to normies. So they're bitter and taking the piss.

Nobody actually cares about the Beatles or Rolling Stones' live stuff do they

Well, I mean, the Beatles didn't have live stuff after 1966. They stopped touring.

>bitter
Speak for yourself fag. I legitimately like the Stones better because I've just been getting into them. The Beatles were my favorite band years ago, but I hardly listen to them anymore.

You don't have to be elitist about the fucking Beatles.

The Beatles were the superior recorded band, they really mastered the studio-crafted pop song. The Rolling Stones were the superior live band, they're better players and they rock harder.

IMO, the Beatles peaked around 1965-1966 while the Rolling Stones peaked around 1969-1970.

They really are different bands, and it's a matter of personal taste - Beatles if you want something mellow and folky, Rolling Stones if you want something funky and bluesy. I was always a bigger Beatles fan, but I find myself listening to the Rolling Stones more often these days.

t.le heavy metal lsd guy with a leather jacket

i hope keef snorted his ashes desu

The Beatles rocked harder than The Stones ever did when they wanted to. Helter Skelter for example.

It's loud and harsh, but it lacks the "balls" of a Stones rocker IMO.

I love the Stones a lot but it's no contest. The Stones themselves would admit that The Beatles are probably the greatest band of all time.

Imagine the Stones recording Strawberry Fields Forever, Happiness Is A Warm Gun or A Day In The Life. Exactly, you can't. The Beatles were simply in a different league as far as songwriting goes.

This is really no insult to the Stones though. I don't think anyone stands up to Lennon-McCartney as songwriters in all of rock history. Another thing that wins it for The Beatles for me is versatility. Proto-metal, psychedelia, raga, folk, jangle pop, baroque pop, hard rock, even bloody avant garden sound collages.

Although I do think the Stones are great if you feel like listening to a specific style.

sound like the osmonds

Here's The Stones doing a Chuck Berry song in 1965.

youtube.com/watch?v=OKrbK3rZVak

And here's The Beatles doing it 3 years earlier.

youtube.com/watch?v=tTpL-lVhXkM

The meme that Stones were harder and dirtier than The Beatles is such horsehit. The Beatles just didn't need to use that as a gimmick and decided to focus more on melody and composition once they matured a bit.

Ive never understoos why this is an argument. The Beatles are obviously far superior to the Stones(who I do actually like.) The discussion should be Beatles vs Kinks or the Who.

I like both but i prefer the stones discography
Miss you and exile are two of my favorite albums

they're both overrated as hell and assholes so I could be either one

>You don't have to be elitist about the fucking Beatles.
seriously though, thats like being elitist about sliced bread or something else everyone fucking knows about

I liked the Stones until they had Brian Jones murdered

For what it's worth, Lennon himself claimed that those early days (when the Beatles were a functional live band) were superior to their recorded output.

The Rolling Stones were a tighter group, and you can feel it in their music. That is why I believe that they were "harder" than the Beatles.

That's not to shit on the Beatles. Their decline as a live act forced them to get more creative on the records, and in the category of melodic studio pop they clearly outdo the Rolling Stones.

Had the Beatles not been so obscenely famous, and had they been given access to better technology on stage, perhaps they would have been a superior live group. They would be a completely different group, however, and we may have never gotten what is considered to be their greatest work.

>the beatles were the better rock band
lmaoing at your opinion and state of your beta ballsack
youtube.com/watch?v=B51A6bcMeDY

>The Rolling Stones were a tighter group
I get what you're saying, but I'm honestly not sure I even agree with that. Outside of Pepper The Beatles largely did play and record their songs live in studio. And there is evidence of them working as a functional live band later in their career, and they kicked a lot of ass.

ok.ru/video/29226568216

forgive the scary looking link, blame the Apple jews who police Youtube for Beatles content.

Actually, I believe that most of the songs recorded from Help! to the White Album were not played live. There were some exceptions, of course.

>ok.ru/video/29226568216

Not a bad performance, and suggests that when forced to, they could have been a good live band again. That said, I've never heard them jam quite as well or tightly as the Stones could. It just wasn't their thing (there's an otherwise complimentary Lennon interview from ~1965 where he criticizes the "5 minute songs" on Rolling Stones albums)

One song, compared to many, man stones rock songs

velvet underground