File: ih8thebeatles.png (3.41 MB, 1765x1080)

3.41 MB PNG

>>129257668
both suck

Stones are a shallow singles band. A "best of" is all you need. Everything The Beatles recorded from Rubber Soul onwards shat on the Stones' entire discog.
Plus Ringo could have beat the crap out of all of them on his own.

>>129257668
>inb4 boybandfag

>>129257710
I'll admit Beatles tended to have albums with more consistently good songs, Stones more filler.
and I even tend to like Beatles more.
but this is for all the non-stop Beatles glazers on here:
I honestly don't think they have a tune from that period that competes with those 3. Get Back would be only true, straight-ahead rocker that competes imo. lots of Beatles tunes during that period were that weird pastiche stuff that is really starting to sound dated.

>>129257668
the rolling stones only good song in their entire career was wild horses. For the beatles i can list many many good songs. Its always beatles v stones, the match is beatles v kinks

>>129257668
>>129257795
>Dear Prudence
>While My Guitar Gently Weeps
>Hey Jude
>A Day In The Life
>Abbey Road Medley
>Something
>Tomorrow Never Knows
>I Am The Walrus
all on pair with the best RS songs
I'd say The Beatles had a more british sound, while the Stones sounded more american by the end of the 60s - largely due to their blues influences
although I wouldn't even call them the best blues rock act of the 60s
The Jimi Hendrix Experience, Led Zeppelin (even in only 2 albums), Cream, The Small Faces, Taste... all superior
the stones are fun, but that's pretty much it

>>129257802
I actually don't know kinks from that period all that well (still discovering songs, unlike Beatles/Stones from that period), but from what I know, they are a lot more similar to Beatles than the Stones were in that period.
Lots of English music hall inspired songwriting.
And they also seemed, like the Beatles, not to be exceptional musicians. Sure Dave Davies invented that harsh guitar sound, but they couldn't groove all that well.
That's what I think separates Stones (at least on the cuts listed). They could just groove way better than Beatles (and Kinks). No way Beatles could play as crunchy a groove as Jumpin Jack Flash.

The Beatles stopped touring because they cant play live.
The Stones are still playing live 50 years later.
only one band in that image are musicians

>>129257856
The Rolling Stones weren't particularly good musicians either, which stands out when they tried playing faster blues
Keith Richards's soloing is pathetic at times
and I don't know if they had anyone as musically gifted as Paul McCartney, or as creative as him and Lennon
as for The Kinks, I'd say they're pretty underrated in terms of songwriting
they had a more english sound than all other bands from their time, and that's where a lot of their charm comes from
Ray Davies is a brilliant songwriter and lyricist
even The Beatles at their best couldn't come up with anything so beautiful as Waterloo Sunset, or The Village Green Preservation Society, or so poignant as Shangri-La
The Who should also come into discussion, they're part of the Big 4 of the british invasion

do you anons also like the zombies? specifically odessey and oracle.

>>129257885
I love that album, but not much else

>>129257878
yeah, PM seemed to be most interested in the music side in Beatles.
and he could actually write perfect rock songs like Get Back when he wanted.
but he seemed more interested in music hall style songs done with a rock beat (like you're mother should know etc.). Wonder if they got that from doing those trad songs with a rock beat with Tony Sheridan?
and Keef sure had his flaws, but he was a hell of rhythm guitarist. and come to think of it, like you stated, he might have been better playing slower. I do like those slower country ish songs like Wild Horses. they hold together so nicely.

>>129257954
did the stones ever do a song like wild horses?

>>129257668
i'm more of a who man myself

>>129258009
the who kinda suck

>>129257963
you mean the Beatles? Rocky Racoon is acoustic and kinda country, but it's more folkish than Stones' country ish acoustic stuff.

>>129258009
based
The Stones could have never come up with anything like Tommy
and they sure as hell couldn't play live like The Who

considering only their 60s output:

>albums
Beatles > Kinks > Who > Stones
>singles
Beatles > Kinks > Stones > Who
>musical skill
Who > Kinks > Beatles > Stones
>live
Who > Stones > Kinks > Beatles
>influence
Beatles > Who > Stones > Kinks

>>129257885
yeah, zombies seem to be the 60's brit band who could have competed with the big four but for some reason dropped off.
I mean 'she's not there' and 'time of season' were as good or maybe even better than any brit group put out during period. (I don't know their album cuts tho ........ maybe i'll have to check that out now that you reminded me)

Beatles - Nirvana
Rolling Stones - Pearl Jam
The Who - Soundgarden
The Kinks - Alice in Chains

>>129258070
your gonna have to check the album out, i love every song off that album. Has a little bit of that pet sounds influence. All great, i particularly like brief candles and this will be our year. I sometimes wonder if the zombies would've been one of the big british bands if they kept making albums

>>129258081
>Beatles - Oasis
>Rolling Stones - Primal Scream
>The Who - XTC
>The Kinks - Blur

>>129257856
Rolling Stones played basic bluesy songs. Beatles and Kinks actually experimented, innovated and did something interesting.

>>129257668
Day Tripper

Beatles - Pee
Rolling Stones - Poo
The Who - Boogers
The Kinks - Vomit

File: folder.jpg (18 KB, 450x406)

18 KB JPG

>>129258531
The Stones diversified their output too, even if it was only for a couple years and everyone ignores it.

>>129257668
for no one, here there and everywhere, i’m only sleeping (that’s just songs from 66 btw)

The real battle is Bob Dylan vs Neil Young

>>129257700
Why does Miyazaki hate the beatles

>>129259258
get your ear checked, bro.

>>129259321
you're insane man

>>129257668
Stones are mid

>>129257668
Why come the 1969 Beatles get to fight elderly 2019 Stones?

beatles had this wimpy rythm, sound and corrosive melodies that appeals more to dorks that are into radiohead (99% of this shit board)

>>129257877
They were great live they just got disillusioned with beatlemania and girls going to their concerts to freak out and scream over their music. Also it became increasingly more difficult to recreate their songs live as their songs got more complex so they decided to focus their energy in the studio instead and thank god they did because they made some of the greatest albums ever

>>129262296
>They were great live
weakest of the big4, though

People who say that Stones are a singles band I think haven't actually listened to them. Like half of their catalog is solid gold.

>>129257795
They’ve got a few songs better than the first two but Gimme Shelter is better than any Beatles song

>>129257700
>happy guy who can afford to draw horror
for funbbecause he doesn't need to escape real life likes the Beatles
>notoriously unhappy and grumpy old man who only creates art romanticizing childhood freedom because he hates his adult life hates the Beatles
damn...

>>129257795
get back is not even in their top 20 songs from that period what kind of taste is this

>>129257827
This nigga really said The Smalls Faces and Taste are better than the Stones dkm

>>129257668
back in the USSR

>>129257668
I don't care for any of the British invasion bands nor any rock music made before 1977.

>>129262988
This, their pre-1966 albums have a lot of filler but pretty much everything from Aftermath to Some Girls is quite solid

>>129262988
>>129263527
not true btw

>>129263671
Expert rebuttal, you sure showed us

>>129257668
>Jumpin' Jack Flash
You could've at least picked a third Stones song that doesn't suck absolute shit. Wild Horses is right fucking there, dumbass.
Though let's be real, the Gram Parsons/Flying Burrito Brothers cover of Wild Horses from the album Burrito Deluxe absolutely clears the original.

>>129263470
The Small Faces were far more skilled and creative than the Stones, especially during the 60s
Taste played the blues much better
so yeah, he has a point

>>129258478
blur is one the worst bands of all time

I have to say I am quite pleased with all the recent backlash that the rolling stones have been getting on /mu/
it seems that just now people are opening their eyes to how insanely overrated and uninteresting they really were
massively untalented industry plants making the blandest blues rock, putting out insipid albums, and trying to mantain that pathetic "yeah rock and roll maaaan" pose
fuck those idiots, especially that retard Keith Richards, he can't play for shit

boy that guy sure hates the Stones huh

>IT'S DOWN TO ME
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pexjkpqob0A

>joke song written by a drunken john entwhistle in 5 minutes mogs everything the stones ever did and influenced what would become metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvFuUaCe8eY

I need to get around to actually listening to Brian Jones era Stones. Because I love Brian Jonestown Massacre

I get the feeling most Stones haters have no appreciation for the roots music that they embraced

>>129264276
really fun song but the the title track is my fav
I get the Ivor the engine driver part stuck in my head just thinking about it

paint it black is the most embarrassing set of lyrics ever put to rock music

>Back In the USSR
>While My Guitar Gently Weeps
>Ob-La-Dee Ob-La-Da
>Come Together
>The Medley
The Beatles were better in every way
The Stones became good before The Beatles though, so that's a real achievement to me

>>129257668
if you remove gimme shelter then almost any song from revolver or sgt peppers
if you include gimme shelter then around 10 songs

jumping jack flash is awful

>>129257877
>stopped touring because they cant play live
lol. You talk utter, uninformed shit. If you said it was sunny I'd take an umbrella. Learn before you spout off.

>>129258081
>>129258478
No.

>>129264763
true, OP's whole point falls flat
they have one great song, a couple of good ones, and the rest is all complete shit
not really an argument for the "greatest band of the 60s"

>>129257668
bump

File: 5f9716e319051.jpg (80 KB, 586x604)

80 KB JPG

For me its beach boys

>>129257668
gr8 b8 m8

>>129263841
Yeah, I agree that the Stones were largely a second rate band whose popularity was kind of artificial. There was a brief period (1966-69) where they were making some pretty good music. But everything else before and after is hardly great.

The Rolling Stones are similar to Led Zeppelin in the sense that their biggest influence was their image and attitude, rather than the actual music. Neither band was innovative in terms of songwriting or performance, but they set the standard for how a rock band should look and act, for better and for worse.

>>129257668
>name one 66-70 Beatles song as good as Paint It Black, Jumpin' Jack Flash, or Gimme Shelter.
Like half of them, 90% of you remove Gimme Shelter

>>129267918
I think that's unfair to Led Zeppelin
even at their most self-indulgent, they were never style over substance
they were outstanding musicians who regularly put out amazing albums and individual songs, were one of the finest live acts in rock history, and (despite not often reinventing themselves) tried their hand on a handful of different genres very succesfully
besides, they were rather private about their image. They weren't strongly marketed as the stones were
don't wanna sound like that dipshit who ruins threads, but the Rolling Stones (like The Monkees) were marketed as a counterpoint to The Beatles, a similarly produced boyband to dispute their crowd
Once The Beatles started experimenting during the mid 60s, The Stones kind of lost their sense of direction and settled for doing blues based rock, which is what they continued to do for the next couple of decades

>>129268068
based
Zeppelin mogs those inbred trust fund babies from the rolling stones
probably why keith richards resents them so much

>>129257668
A Day in the Life

Wow, that was hard.

>>129257795
How the fuck do you like that saar song so much? Such a gimmick.

>>129268468
how is get back a saar song?

File: 1641505931541.gif (2.57 MB, 420x236)

2.57 MB GIF

>>129268866
He means
>buzzword buzzword buzzword, do I fit in yet?
Because he's a spotty pubescent wreck, with no knowledge of music, in desperate need of validation. This thread has got a couple of them. You can always spot them when they try to start console wars about bands, like it's uncool to like both.

>>129264517
It’s also the most Jewish. It sounds like a Jewish wedding song.

>>129268447
The Stones could have made Led Zeppelin II. Led Zeppelin couldn't have made Between the Buttons.

>>129257668
Eleanor Rigby
For No One
A Day In The Life
Come Together
Golden Slumbers / Carry That Weight / The End
Something
Get saged

>>129267918
Led zep were quite innovative. Page's guitar was probably more innovative than most bands at that time.

>>129270160
Page was a very talented guitarist, but Zeppelin were hardly original or innovative in any respect.

>>129270197
nothing in 1968 sounded like Led Zeppelin I or II
they were the heaviest, fastest, loudest rock band at the time, and they were still tight and groovy
no wonder every other band throughout the 70s tried to copy their style

>>129257802
Wasn't that assumed to be written by Gram Parsons?

>>129270420
Jeff Beck's Truth album sounded exactly like Led Zeppelin 1. So much so that you could accuse Zeppelin of ripping it off.
>no wonder every other band throughout the 70s tried to copy their style
Not really. The Zeppelin imitators were mostly hair metal groups in the 80s.

>>129270702
>Jeff Beck's Truth album sounded exactly like Led Zeppelin 1
not in any shape or form
if anything, it was blues rock, but that's about it
> The Zeppelin imitators were mostly hair metal groups in the 80s
listen to any hard rock, blues rock, and even some psych rock band from the 70s, and you'll see how much they sound like Zeppelin
bands like Cactus, Mountain, Foghat, Humble Pie, ACDC, Van Halen, Queen... all owe a lot to LZ

>>129264586
saar songs

>>129271398
>not in any shape or form
You either haven't listened to Truth or you're being dishonest, because they sound incredibly similar. They even cover the same Willie Dixon song, You Shook Me. Jeff Beck's group wasn't very original either, but they did perfect the hard rock / heavy metal sound before Zeppelin.
>Cactus, Mountain, Foghat, Humble Pie, ACDC, Van Halen, Queen
All these bands suck, but I guess I'll concede that LZ did inspire them.

>>129271398
Rolling Stone review from 1969:
>The latest of the British blues groups so conceived offers little that its twin, the Jeff Beck Group, didn’t say as well or better three months ago, and the excesses of the Beck group’s Truth album (most notably its self-indulgence and restrictedness), are fully in evidence on Led Zeppelin‘s debut album.
>In their willingness to waste their considerable talent on unworthy material the Zeppelin has produced an album which is sadly reminiscent of Truth. Like the Beck group they are also perfectly willing to make themselves a two- (or, more accurately, one-a-half) man show.

mogged by tiny tim

>>129271932
>because they sound incredibly similar.
I don't see it that way
I love Truth, but it's not as heavy as LZI, which was the true innovation it brought to rock music
>All these bands suck
I like the first four, as low as their production value was

>>129272314
Rolling Stone notoriously had bad taste.
But it is odd how famous LZ1 is compared to Jeff Beck Truth.
I mean I'm aware of JBT and have heard various cuts off it from time to time, but, like all my friends, probably heard LZ1 a hundred times.

>>129276571
>which was the true innovation it brought to rock music
In what regards? What did it do that other bands hadn't done before? Heavy rock music existed at least since 67.

>>129276955
artists like Cream and Hendrix had started the trend of fast and heavy blues the year before, but Zeppelin took it away from psychedelic rock, and shaped it in the way that hard rock was for the following decade