The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

The Beatles:
>varied output, hugely influential, many classic songs
Bob Dylan:
>varied output, hugely influential, many classic songs
Rolling Stones
>all sound the same, little influence, two or three classic songs

Canned Heat > The Beatles > The Rolling Stones > Bob Dylan

Attached: cannedheat06-640x381.jpg (640x381, 59K)

This, except a huge power gap between Dylan and the Stones.

The Beatles are objectively the greatest band of all time. The Rolling Stones will were always at least one step behind them.

I prefer Nazz

The Pretty Things obviously

Kinks > Dylan > Floyd > Beatles > Stones > Who

they're all shit, if you like them you literally got brainwashed by mass media into believing an incontrovertibly wrong opinion

Who's good then?

Daughters, Death Grips, Aphex Twin, people doing interesting stuff with music instead of guitar wankery

The Beatles are the greatest band of all time. The Rolling Stones are the second greatest band of all time.

The Beatles and the Beach Boys are the true comparable competitors. Rolling Stones vs. Beatles is like trying to revive Beatles vs Herman's Hermits or Beatles vs Four Seasons rhetoric from the early 60s.
As for what the Rolling Stones specifically did, Led Zeppelin did later and better. Nobody is quite like the Beatles

We need a zoomer genocide

>Death Grips

Attached: 152778201.png (1440x1557, 738K)

Stones are last but they have a great output in the late 60s and early 70s with a great live act around then as well.

this.
>beatles were UK
>beach boys were USA

their fanbases were both MASSIVE and absolutely INSANE about their respective favorites.

My aunt tells me stories about being a teen in the 60s. She said it was ALL about the beach boys on the west coast. There was no alternative. Surfing and the boys were a way of life.

Music would have changed very little without the stones. That's how high they rank.

>the stones weren't influential
Do shoyu-boyu really believe this?

Attached: disgust pepe.jpg (860x550, 61K)

Alright fine. They sent the standard for having that extra act that nobody really needs in popular music.

They weren't totally influential, but the comparison is between Rolling Stones vs the fucking Beatles. The Rolling Stones helped develop hard rock, but I still say Led Zeppelin basically did the Stones act a million times better

Dylan > Stones > Beatles
This is the only correct ranking.

>Thinks Led Zeppelin is better than the Stones

Attached: B07392E7-7BA7-409C-A9EE-9B9A3392DA9C.gif (237x240, 1.95M)

>guitar wankery
>Bob Dylan, the Beatles

The early/mid '60s Rolling Stones albums are essentially the blueprint for the garage rock of that decade, and the late '60s/early '70s albums are similarly a blueprint for a significant portion of le dadrock. If their wasn't some 50-year-old pop-press manufactured "rivalry" between the Beatles and 'Stones, I think the latter group would get a lot more credit.

I like some of LZ's songs, but something about them just lacks "soul" to me.

I never understood why out of all the bands of the 60s, somehow the Rolling Stones became the boomer #2. They weren't the #2 best-selling or the #2 best-reviewed band, but somehow they have this cult of personality that swears their brand of hokey country rock and bastardized American accents was one of the best things to come from the 60s. This was an era where SanFran bands, the Who, and Hendrix were popular, we had Bob Dylan's 1966 live tour, and the Beatles were spotlighting styles faster than the duration of their songs, and somehow the Rolling Stones is supposed to seem impressive? Seriously?

Watch their T.A.M.I. Show performance and tell me a comparable rock band Americans would have been familiar with in 1964.

>The early/mid '60s Rolling Stones albums are essentially the blueprint for the garage rock of that decade
Yes, they were influential on garage rock, but no, the Beatles were a much bigger blueprint. The Beatles' Ed Sullivan appearance alone is estimated to have inspired hundreds of thousands of garage bands, and the influence is obvious when you compare rougher demos of Beatles songs like That Means a Lot youtube.com/watch?v=bKZhbZraat4 to the melodic garage rock of the mid-sixties youtube.com/watch?v=qIcSkgF0TLo.

That doesn't explain why they were still popular after 1966 user

I think that even Scaruffi would concede that the Beatles were massively influential in making American kids pick up instruments and form rock groups, but how do you account for the massive influence of rhythm & blues in "white music" around 1964-1965?

Because they were an established group with a funky rock sound?

I would consider it a fraction of the totality of garage rock in that era? I was arguing against the point that the Stones somehow made a blueprint for the garage rock of an entire decade.

I disagree. I think that the Beatles were far more influential on the folk rock and psychedelic pop of that era. When I think of garage rock, I think of fuzztone-drenched blues rock.

Where would you rank The Who?

Listen to every Beatles, Byrds, Stones, Kinks etc. album in the order they came out and you'll see the Beatles were light years ahead of all of those other groups by a solid year and a half.

The Stones devotion, however, does not come from the 60s. It's largely coming from the 70s, and arguably the stones were a much bigger act in the early 70s. They were one of THE groups that spanned/connected the two decades. Most people who were Beatles devotees are dead/dying, what you see in Boomers are those born in the Late 50s, early 60s, who would have been about 10-14 when the Beatles broke up. What they had to experience as they got into music was the Stones output from 70-75 basically. They had the brand recognition from surviving the 60s that allowed them to be many young people's "first band" in the 70s who were later Boomers. That's why the Stones seem so huge.

[citation needed]

billboard.com/music/the-rolling-stones/chart-history/billboard-200/3

literally only boomers think the stones are better than the beatles

Imagine rating the Beatles over the Stones

Attached: 1516781997022.png (644x800, 15K)

Nice selfie. The Chadles > The Rolling Queers

>their best song is a disco song
Stones are Muzak

what the fuck

Attached: disgust.png (508x321, 126K)

The Beatles were better musicians, The Stones were better performers.