The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

the Beatles have 63 songs better than the best Rolling Stones song edition

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=Nw6hdhVw48Y
youtu.be/tTpL-lVhXkM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No contest, it's Beatles. The question is wrongly asked.

it is no competition, but it's the stones

It's a tough comparison because the Beatles become more of a studio group while the Stones were doing interesting stuff in the studio and on stage. The Beatles put out a lot of higher quality stuff but I can't say they were a better band. I'm not even sure I would call them a band toward the end so much as four reluctant collaborators who sometimes actually played together.

this. the stones are more than the sum of their parts, but at least two of the beatles even released solo material that was unarguably better than the stones

The Stones make songs that I prefer, but their quality is very inconsistent and they didn't innovate much. The Beatles however made a load of pretty good songs, with great album structure (Stones have shit album structure) and were a great influence on music.

So it'd have to be The Beatles

Beatles just because I prefer psychedelic rock over blues rock.

Stones easily

Beatles always felt like a joke band of sorts. Meanwhile the Stones music sound extremely sincere. Their music just hits home for me.

Delete this.

>White upper class Brits
>playing black American folk and blues
Oh yeah sounds extremely sincere to me

The Beatles were better songwriters, more creative musicians and had better songs and albums

The Rolling Stones were technically better musicians and were a better band.

The Who.

Wyman, Richards and Watts aka the important part of the band came from literally nothing. And the Beatles played 'black American folk and blues' too

>the only important part of the band is what I say it is
No

>And the Beatles played 'black American folk and blues' too
[citation needed]

It should've been the Beatles vs Kendrick Lamar

XDDD The beatles didnt play skiffle which was a white British adaptation of black music and RnB for years!! Lol I'm literally retarded RIIIIIICK!

This guy's too stupid to argue with. Don't bother.

>which was a white British adaptation of
Not what I'm asking. Try again

Meanwhile The Stones were like
youtube.com/watch?v=Nw6hdhVw48Y

Oh wow... the Stones made a blues song. You entirely disproved the idea the Beatles played any kind of music based off of black music ever

>any kind of music based off of
Not what I'm asking.

>reading comprehension, what is it

youtu.be/tTpL-lVhXkM

Before Beatlemania the Beatles could rock just as hard as the Stones onstage. They just got fed up and tired of touring and couldn’t hear themselves so they eventually stopped trying.

>being this retarded

Have you even listened to a Stones record?

>The Rolling Stones were technically better musicians

MAYBE better than John, George, and Ringo. Absolutely not better than Paul McCartney in this or any other reality.

Beach Boys were better than The Beatles and The Stones

Did you read the thread?
>Absolutely not better than Paul McCartney
I suppose
MOMMAS LITTLE BABY LOVES SHORTNIN SHORTNIN
MOMMAS LITTLE BABY LOVES SHORTNIN SHORTNIN
MOMMAS LITTLE BABY LOVES SHORTNIN SHORTNIN

I prefer the sleaze of the Stones desu

I much prefer listening to the Stones because the Beatles have a lot of schlock, but because of the Stones have been around for a much longer time they inevitably released some very lackluster albums, so overall I'd have to say the Beatles are better.

The Beatles > The Who > The Beach Boys > The Velvet Underground > The Kinks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Rolling Stones

VU>Beatles>Stones>BB>Who>The Kinks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>your favourite band

>the Beatles have a lot of schlock,
Like what?

A lot of their early albums, lots of the White Album, etc

Somehow The Beatles ended up on your ranking twice :^)

What about that is schlock?

Tell us what white album songs are "schlock" so that we call laugh at your horrible taste.

The only Beatles I really like is their early stuff. By retiring from live performances they became really bloated, dull, soft and over reliant upon studio wizardry. Revolver, Abbey Road don't impress me and are just good rock n roll.
Compared to the Stones though they don't even compare, from their debut to Goat's Head Soup you get 9 years of fantastic rock and roll, with the best musicians in rock history

Who > Stones > Beach Boys > Kinks > VU > Beatles

Fiiiiight meeee

I'd go Stones > Beach Boys > Who > VU > Kinks > Beatles personally.

Why does Sup Forums seem to dislike the Who? To me they're one of the only 60's titans that managed to adapt their sound with 70's production techniques, with my Generation and Who's Virtually spanning two decades of sound. I really don't think any of the others made something as good as Who's Next.

>Beatles so low
It's OK not everyone can be a patrician

I find that they were a very good arty band trapping a fantastic rock and roll band underneath them.

You're right, I'd be a pleb if I ranked The Beatles any higher
It's nice you admit you plebitude though, user
Very honest of you

>I'd be a pleb if I ranked The Beatles any higher
I don't think you know what pleb/patrician means

You're just one of those people that is so deluded that they can never admit that theyre wrong, or at the very least, vapid.

Don't worry though. You fit right in with whatever percentage of the human race that is not musically trained (wayyy more than the rest of us).

Pleb= Likes The Beatles

Seems pretty simple, or are you too much of a stupid pleb to understand?

Ah yes, who knew that taste was objective
Good job user, maybe one day you'll learn when you get out of primary school

Yeah you definitely don't know what you are talking about

You are adorable though

Aw, poor pleb is too dumb to understand
Aren't you precious?

Chart out a Beatles song and show us your patricianhood

>MAYBE better than John, George, and Ringo. Absolutely not better than Paul McCartney in this or any other reality.
But Paul is the least talented of the four.

Considering what aspect?

Not an argument.

The Who has an issue where they set up the blueprint for pretty much every cockrock (and later buttrock) band that followed, and Sup Forums has had a notable disdain for that. Most of their overt contributions will, much like The Rolling Stones, lead to bands which Sup Forums hasn't never particularly cherished - Pearl Jam, for one. Meanwhile, they have been strong contributors to prog rock, proto-punk and power pop, probably the strongest ones for those areas besides The Beatles, with a good dose of influence to noise rock as well. Save for power pop, however, that isn't really noticeable, unlike, say The Velvet Underground - and power pop, while a much beloved genre, isn't artsy.

I have never up until this moment ever considered The Who to be an inspiration to Pearl Jam. I think you might be reaching.

The Rolling Stones on the other hand were THE FIRST buttrock band. Bar none. Every invalid "boy band criticism" that contrarians have for the Beatles, 100% applies to the Stones.

The Who was a huge Pearl Jam inspiration, Eddie Vedder has praised them often and they've covered A Quick One multiple times.

I guess it's the same with Aerosmith and The Beatles then... reaching.

I don't hear the Who's influence in Pearl Jam's music any more than I hear Black Sabbath, R.E.M., or Dinosaur Jr.

I mean, I agree, the influence isn't there musically as much as you'd expect. Then again, Black Sabbath were huge Beatles fans - especially of the Merseybeat era.

>I have never up until this moment ever considered The Who to be an inspiration to Pearl Jam. I think you might be reaching.
Are you retarded? They covered The Who many times. Even the Pearl Jam song "Pray To" played backwards, you can hear Eddie say "Pete Towsnhend saved my life."

Oddly enough, I havent payed attention to anything Pearl Jam has done since "Ten."

They seem to be as relevant as Dave Matthew's Band.

>If I don't care about it, it doesn't matter

Excuse me, but has Pearl Jam been relevant since the early-mid 90s?

They are as relevant as Aerosmith in 2018 (which is to say they get plenty of classic rock radio airplay, but none of the kids care).

>but has Pearl Jam been relevant since the early-mid 90s?
They seem to still be playing arenas worldwide, so yes?
>none of the kids care
No one fucking cares about stupid kids.

>No one fucking cares about stupid kids
So stale it's not even funny. Enjoy Pearl Jam, grandpa.