The Rolling Stones vs The Beatles

beatles 100%
stones suck ass, the majority of it is boring blues rock
their "psychedelic" era was piss poor compared to the beatles and was just a gimmick
they tried going for disco in the 70s and that sucked

Beatles

According to this board, The Beatles.

Attached: 5793F162-F7F6-4ADD-8CE3-5814B8D2A6DC.jpg (458x858, 169K)

stones never touched this

Attached: whitealbum.jpg (355x303, 4K)

the list goes on...

Attached: chad stance.jpg (410x658, 75K)

idk who's better but this is probably my favorite cover art by either, not to mention my favorite rolling stones album

Attached: beggarsbanquet.jpg (1506x750, 413K)

>In a sense, the Rolling Stones invented the opposite of the short, little songs that had dominated the preceding decades, and that continued for a while, thanks to the Beatles. And the binomial "blues+rock" remains today the dominant style of rock music. From Led Zeppelin to Nirvana, directly or indirectly, they're all children of The Rolling Stones. Without the Stones the history of rock and roll would have been completely different.
>In those years the Stones didn't play songs, they shouted in people faces. While the Beatles had tea with the Queen, the Stones were pissing in public.
>Through those years The Rolling Stones became by all accounts one of the greatest rock and roll bands. Their continuous concerts established a standard reference for younger bands, a fact not to be overlooked considering that in general the new generation was better served technically than the old one. But that's not the case for The Rolling Stones, who would continue to dominate even when their albums were mediocre. While The Beatles (and many others of their generation) were no longer playing live, realizing their mediocrity as musicians and embarrassed to confront themselves with a much better prepared generation, The Rolling Stones put on the best show on earth.
>Indirectly, the Rolling Stones invented the fundamental axis of rock and roll: the sexy singer, sexual object and shaman, and the charismatic guitarist. For at least forty years that would remain the only constant in rock music (and one of the external features that set it apart from jazz, folk, classical music). In an era still crowded with vocal groups of pop music (Beach Boys, Beatles) inspired by those of the 1940s', the Stones represented a generational trauma.

Attached: piero.jpg (474x437, 22K)

The Beatles. The Stones suck.

based

Le ebic paedo-pinion arrives

>one of the greatest rock and roll bands
>one of

The Beatles.

Attached: 8C31ED51-C065-4A08-94A8-81D84CE87138.jpg (1358x2048, 696K)

t. smiling white middle class beatlesfag

iF sToNeS gOoD y ThIs

Attached: rollingpedophiles.jpg (540x420, 36K)

Beatles Are gay compared to the stones

I used to like the Beatles and hate the Stones, but I’ve been on a 60s rock binge recently, and I’ll say this: The Stones are a lot better than I gave them credit for. I see why people thought they could compete with the Beatles. I think those who hate them could definitely benefit from giving them a more thorough listen, they’re a better band than people give them credit for

I still prefer the Beatles though, I should’ve said that

Early stones so much better than early Beatles. Like when they were doing covers and shit .

The Monkees

>Beatles Are gay compared to the stones
>compared to the stones
>the stones
That's not how you spell Led Zeppelin user.

Exile on Main Street > White Album > Revolver > rest of the prime stones > rest of the beatles

The Kinks are better then both.