The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

the Rolling Stones have more good albums than the Beatles have albums edition

except the stones where two steps behind the beatles with every release

lies and deceit

I'll never understand how such a mediocre band like the Rolling Stones became comparable to the greatest musical act of the 20th century.

It should at least be The Beach Boys, The Kinks, The Who, The Velvets if it's all just concerning the microcosm that was "Rock music in the 60s."

>Beatles
>greatest musical act of the 20th century
They were great, and were definitely ahead of their time, but I wouldn't exactly go THAT far.

The Rolling Stones have made like 3 good songs.

The Beatles have at least 3 good albums.

Stones were a much better band
They have the Beatles beat in lyricism, musicianship, song writing, listenability and relatability.

Beatles were basically a boy band that matured into more dreamy expansive stuff and then ended, that was basically the just like the stones but then the Stones gelled into going back to where they started but in a much more developed way to create the constant stream of radio dominance of their era.

I seriously feel like the people that say shit like the Rolling Stones are mediocre, meaningless generic dadrock or that they just made a few songs haven't heard their discography at all. They are seriously fucking great.

The Beatles were basically soy boys and the Stones were Chads

What other act in history comes close to their influence on today's music?

You'd have to start listing off classical composers, which were re-popularized by the baroque-pop styling of bands like The Beatles.

Reminder that Aftermath & Between The Buttons are legitimately good (and overlooked) albums.

is this even a fair battle?
everybody knows that Rolling Stones is a lot more consistent and has more content

Funny how nowhere in your post was mentioned their quality.

>inb4 "the fact that so many books..."

Not even a debate The Beatles are easily better. The Stones are still fantastic, but they were very inconsistent and put out a ton of shit.

Best pop music. *yes that includes miles davis and people like him.

Is this even a fair battle?
Everybody knows that Paul McCartney has more talent in his left ring finger than the combined talent of every Rock band that's ever come out of the UK.

No hyperbole implied.

stones easy.

>inb4 an angry non-musician's rant on a topic he has no background in

ftfy

...

McCartney/Wings > Stones > Beatles is the patrician choice

Flip Beatles and Stones and you've got a deal.

>everything I don't like is reddit

You got that backwards.

this, it's just kids with boomer parents who fell into the beatlemania craze and passed it on to their kids

nah parroting the boomer rockist consensus is pretty reddit

RL Stine is really gross looking. Welcome To the Deadhouse is a pretty good book though. They should discuss it on /lit/

the beatles literally sing about meditating and smoking weed and being gay

the stones sing about getting pussy and not being a beta oribiter

>backwards

So because you don't care for the fans of "band X" makes them somehow worse than the slightly less acclaimed "band Y"? Sounds like sound logic friendo.

I like the Beatles more overall, but the Rolling Stones have individual songs that are miles better than anything the Beatles ever recorded

>Hasnt listened to based love you to by the based george harrison

Odd because my "local chamber orchestra" parents didn't listen to rock music at all when I was growing up. I came to this conclusion on my own.

>Jagger being a better lyricist than Lennon
>Richards being better at guitar than McCartney at anything
>Jagger/Richards even holding a candle to Lennon/McCartney
>Any Stones album being more listenable than Sgt. Pepper

The Beatles were miles ahead of the Stones, and everyone knows it.

>lyricism
Fair, that said The Beatles never cared for lyrics.
>musicianship
Only Brian Jones, and The Beatles as an unit were better.
>song writing
The Beatles are a fair bit ahead of The Stones in this, then again The Stones were also surprisingly good.
>listenability
Way too subjective.
>relatability
Irrelevant to music, also highly subjective.

Stones easily. I honestly doubt that people who prefer Beatles have heard anything other than Satisfaction

No i'm just sick of being beaten over the head with "Sgt. Pepper is the greatest rock album of all time" when it's not even the best beatles release and people completely ignoring albums like Aftermath, Between the Buttons, Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, and Exile on Main St, all of which are better

McCartney played bass you fucking drone

>all of which are better
Maybe to the untrained ear.

>McCartney played bass you fucking drone
He also played guitar.

The Beatles were fucking sellouts in the beginning and they knew it. "I want to hold your hand...", sang a band seasoned in basement pubs in Hamburg and Liverpool, playing for drunk sailors and rowdy hooligans, born into lower class in a port city during WW2. They were tough bastards and didn't need to prove that.

Not that guy, but I like the Beatles more than the Stones and still think Let it Bleed is better than Sgt. Pepper's.

He played guitar on like 4 beatles songs, sometimes not even for the full track

I honestly think sgt pepper is one of their worst aside from a day in the life which is great

I feel like you didn't make a very itemized estimate on that. Paul ended up playing guitar on most of his own songs while in the Beatles albeit not always the lead guitar.

Like when the Stones were composing 11 minute-long songs when not one Beatles song extended past 5 minutes, or when the Stones went back to blues and soul in 1967 before Cream-mania fully hit and the Beatles were still stuck peddling psychedelic pop?

I agree the Beatles were way ahead of the Stones and more forward thinking musicians than the Stones at some points (particularly in the beginning when the Stones were Moog Oldham's blues band playthings and overall in the studio) but the reverse is also true at others (the Stones came up with a lot of live innovations, guitar techniques and genre conventions in rock). Anyone who says otherwise is a brainlet

>classical composers, which were re-popularized by the baroque-pop styling of bands like The Beatles

In Dreams (everything by Orbison was influential to British bands), It's Over, She's Not There (very important record), I Get Around, Oh, Pretty Woman, Mr. Tambourine Man, As Tears Go By and Play with Fire did also exist in 1963-5 you know

People who shit on The Stones probably have no appreciation for blues, country, or early rock 'n' roll in general.

Nah, he played guitar on several. Ticket to Ride, Taxman, Yesterday, Helter Skelter, Mother Nature's Son, Sgt. Pepper's (and the Reprise), The End, Back In The U.S.S.R, And Your Bird Can Sing and Good Morning Good Morning.

if it werent for mccartney, id agree with the stones posters here. theres just no matching this man's talent

Innovation =/= influence or quality

...

Not to mention he played every instrument (other than drums) on Paperback Writer.

You should've at least named them.

I'm not shitting on the Stones, I like them. They're just not on the same stratum as The Beatles.

That comes as no surprise given Sup Forums.

People who shit on The Beatles probably have no appreciation for classical, folk music, or traditional world music in general.

The three greatest musical artists of the pop age have been The Beatles, Dylan, and the Stones.

Dylan was an innovative and creative lyricist, managed to make folk commercially viable, and proved that you didn't need great skill to be a great musician.

The Stones were the greatest rockers of all time, with a catalogue of riffs nobody will ever match and a seedy, dirty style that has influenced practically everyone interested in rock.

The Beatles, however, have seen their influence grow to practically every corner of music. Their lyrics could occasionally be just as insightful as Dylan, their music just as exciting as the Stones, and were far more successful than either of them at any time in history. They are, simply put, so melodic and musical that they never need to fear being overhyped, because it's practically impossible.

Arguing about the merits of the three is meaningless. They were simply the three greatest musicians in three different ways, and a preference for one over the other tells us nothing except what you personally believe to be the most important component of a pop song.

I try to start classic Stones threads on here pretty regularly, but since they're soyboy repellent and Sup Forums is... pic related... they usually sink to page 10 with one or two replies.

Yeah, who would've thought that you'd need to leach off of The Beatles' greatness to actually get a thread bumped on a music board.

seething

lamo you really think people who are super into classical music and contemporary classical composers sit around listening to and praising the beatles? god beatles stans are embarrassing

Same, I started one the other day that got two replies one of which was "they're a poor man's Beatles"

I've spent my entire life around people who play in chamber orchestras, and have also met many musicians who play in the Big 5 (American orchestras), particularly members of the CSO. Thank my parents for being such troglodytic string musicians that I ended up with a background in classical music.

The Beatles are one of the very few popular music acts that are revered in those circles.

Adding on, I have it on good authority that Claudio Abbado used to listen to The Beatles in his car on the way to conduct Tchaikovsky Symphony No. 3.

>Cream-mania
LMAO what the fuck are you talking about?

I think they were the first rock group to do that whole "jamming power trio" thing. At least the ones who popularized it.

Absolutely wrong OP. Thanks for proving OP is always a faggot

Stones were the kings of filler. Most of their albums had 2 or 3 good songs, and a bunch of crap. Still, given their longevity, that comes out to more than 50 very good songs. It would be quite easy to put together a 4 hour long Rolling Stones hit compilation.

Lennon wasn't even the good Beatle guitarist
No one really praises Lennons playing but plenty praise Harrison's playing
get lost you fuckin scrub

The Stones were unbelievably better than the beatles. The Beatles never had the song writing or song playing ability to make a song like Sympathy for the Devil.

Lennon was the best singer. Paul's solo on Taxman is amazing and he's a solid bass player

The Beatles couldn't write, let alone perform a single song off Exile on Main street.

BABY YOU CAN DRIVE MY CAR

Norwegian Wood alone is better written than any song on Exile you earlet

so a worse version of Paint It Black?

the velvet underground makes them both look terrible

my dad was a classical trombonist, mom was into weird 80's pop, grandpa worshipped the stones and thought the beatles were shit, i listened to at least 4/5ths of their albums and came to my own conclusion that for the most part this is true.

That I would contest less heavily. Of the popular music genre, they really were quite magnificent. I wish I was more of a fan of pop music.

Yes, but less great albums. Plus, naming every track on a Beatles album without looking at it is not difficult. Try that with the Rolling Stones. Just to clarify, I love the Stones and think they have some of the best rock and roll songs ever.

The others were also great, but the Stones were their equal at the least.
Stop using meme words, you sound ridiculous.
Your grandpa earned his disdain of the Beatles, in his day it was all brand new and you could honestly choose between one and the other and sincerely believe in it. You can't do that anymore because of the gunk accumulated over the decades.

*fewer

lol no they don't silly

yes they do and i am not silly

of all the beatles albums, the only 2 that aren't massively overrated are rubber soul and the white album