The great debate

Stones, but the best Beatles album (The White Album) is better than any Stones album

every song on Sticky Fingers

both are mediocre but the beatles are less mediocre

Kek
Based granny shit poster.

BEATLES

The Beatles, easily. They had a much better catalog in every way possible.
But I still respect Rolling Stones. My problem with them is that I find their albums, even the classics, really inconsistent (except for Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed). A lot of their singles are amazing.

Both are giga overrated mediocre bands,so both lose to a decent band

easily the beatles. the rolling stones symbol/logo is better though.

Stones suck. Blues rock sucks.

Gimme Shelter is one of the greatest songs ever made.

It does, but it’s far superior to blues as a genre.

Compare mature Stones or Zeppelin to anything in blues music. It’s like a whole other level.

People debate this? The only good Rolling Stones songs are I Wanna Be Your Man, Love In Vain, and Angie.

>Under My Thumb, Paint it Black, Gimme Shelter, Yesterday's Papers, She's a Rainbow, Sympathy For The Devil, Rip This Joint and many more aren't god-tier

Cringe.

Anyone who thinks the Stones are even better than Wings is stupid and gay.

Yoko was the only person associated with them that was a communist.

The Doors

Beatles because psych>blues.

>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.

ledzep

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 115K)

>"hey guys, a or b?"
>"HAHA C! xD"
I fuckin hate people like you. Choose Beatles or Stones or get fucked faggot.
Also,
>Led Zeppelin
You could at least have picked a good band.

Holy shit, this is 90% bullshit. The only right thing about this is that Kick Jagger is the most influential frontman ever.
Scaruffi is mentally challenged holy fuck.

Pink Floyd

Trump is a Stones fan so

She's a Rainbow is actually pretty damn cringe

>People saying Stones were better
>When the Stones literally tried to copy Sgt. Peppers and failed miserably

Attached: Rolling_Stones_-_Their_Satanic_Majesties_Request_-_1967_Decca_Album_cover.jpg (316x315, 36K)

It's indeed a Sgt. Pepper's ripoff but it's not bad c'mon

Imagine being marketed as the hardcore alternative to the biggest boy band in the world and still having some grandma panderer write a song harder than anything in your discography

Attached: bb35ca2d011c8b87e104cf31911aafca.jpg (630x928, 86K)

kek i dont like your description of paul but i agree

Beach Boys

I don't really think the soi meme is all that funny but anyone who unironically thinks the Beatles are better is a complete soi-male. The Rolling Stones had this awesome sensuality to their music, a sexy swagger that the Beatles completely lacked. "muh experimentation" and all that nerd shit aside, the stones actually sounded fucking sexy, mysterious, and dangerous on every one of their best albums and are easily the better band.

>calls the Beatles soi
>goes on to say some incredibly homosexual things
Fucking kek, you couldn't want Mick's dick in your ass any harder

ty user. based

This post is gay as fuck bro

First off, soi != homosexual, you don't even understand the meme you are talking about. Secondly, it's easy to understand sex appeal in music if you aren't an illiterate heathen who has had his mind destroyed by porn. It doesn't mean I want to fuck mick jagger kek, I'm just saying that their music had a swagger to it that carried confidence and a masculine sexuality, that's why countless women wanted to fuck mick. I still see women walking around all the time in Stones shirts, the girls I've talked too about the stones have said that they like the almost sensual aspect of their music. The Beatles literally sound like a bunch of dorks with their collars done all the way up passing off "muh experimentation" as a substitute for a real sense of good ass blues, and everything that is evoked by the blues (sex, drugs, americana, etc.)

A wall of text isn't helping hide your latent homosexuality

The Beatles still had the best songwriting, by far, and the superior discography.

The Beatles by far but The Rolling Stones have some of the best songs in Rock n Roll history

The Beatles are way above the Rolling Stones, but fuck me, if Ruby Tuesday isn't a good song.

It's the Rolling Stones but this boomer dick sacking board loves the Beatles to much to admit it.

>And 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-farin' 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 f***ing 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 s**t on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.

>I remember one gig the Beatles had at the Cavern, It was just after they got Brian Epstein as their manager. Everyone in Liverpool knew that Epstein was gay, and some kid in the audience screamed, 'John Lennon's a f***ing queer!' And John--who never wore his glasses on stage--put his guitar down and went into the crowd, shouting, 'Who said that?' So this kid says, 'I f***ing did.' John went after him and BAM, gave him the Liverpool kiss, sticking the nut on him--twice! And the kid went down in a mass of blood, snot and teeth. Then John got back on the stage.

>'Anybody else?' he asked. Silence. 'All right then. "Some Other Guy".'

-Lemmy from Motorhead

So that's how John got so good at beating his wife