The Rolling Stones suck
>>129968845You insist on yourself.
stones have good songsbeatles have good albumsstones were poshos trying to act toughbeatles were tough working class lads trying to act cute beatles mythology is probably helped by lennon dying young and the beatles not being able to get back together and ruin the legacy
>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 fucking 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 shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear.
>>129968921>The Beatles were hard menSounds like a gay thing to say. Was Lemmy gay?
>>129968921Based.
bump
>>129968845Yes
Honestly, The Rolling Stones are gayer than the Beatles, not that there's anything wrong with that.
Wrong
