Let's settle it once and for all, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones?
Explain your thinking

In seven years, The Beatles produced a more diverse output than the Stones did in twenty.

>>126752497 (OP)
They were never even close in terms of quality

>>126752526
>diverse
Shitles fans always use this cope. Why would I want a band to be "diverse"?
If I want rock music I'll listen to a rock band. If I want pop music I'll listen to a pop group.
Why did I have to have my rock band also be my pop band?

>>126752497 (OP)
The Stones don't have a Day in the Life, so The Beatles win.

>>126752545
Based Stones bro who gets it

>>126752550
>If I want rock music I'll listen to a rock band. If I want pop music I'll listen to a pop group.
Caveman logic

>>126752566
Why? Beatles were jack of all trades, masters of none
Stones mastered rock

>>126752497 (OP)
The Beatles are more consistent, but the Stones' best is so much better that's not even close.
I'll choose Rolling Stones.

>>126752554
Paul's part ruins it

My issue with the Beatles is I simply do not like John or Paul's voices. I don't enjoy hearing them sing at all. Don't like their accents, don't like their timbre, just don't like hearing them. As a result, no matter how "great" their music supposedly is, I am just not interested in listening to it
Mick isn't the best either but I could listen to Mick wailing away and be fine

>>126752497 (OP)
Beatles were rough working class lads, Stones were preppy art school kids. The choice is easy.

>>126752740
Why does that matter at all? Fags always bring this up as if it's relevant to anything

>>126752554
>>126752740
>>126752583
remember when /mu/ hated the beatles? pepperidge farm remembers

>>126753013
It's because all the oldfags got married and work jobs now
only retarded neets and zoomer fucking shits are still here

>>126753013
Show us your music chart

Paul Mccartney actually has a nice voice and can sing well unlike mick jagger and thats important when you want to be a singer for a band.
also as >>126752526 has said, on shuffle the beatles can go from romantic style ballad piano pieces to honky tonk blues / shuffle and then prog rock to nice solo acoustic all within their discography.
with stones you're always going to get basic blues rock and maybe a solo acoustic if you're lucky.
the beatles were also just cooler looking.

>>126753082
>the beatles were also just cooler looking.
now THIS is bait

the beatles were probably the least cool looking band of all time though

>When asked what he thought of The Rolling Stones, Lennon replied: “I think its a lot of hype. I like ‘Honky Tonk Woman’ but I think Mick’s a joke, with all that fag dancing, I always did. I enjoy it, I’ll probably go and see his films and all, like everybody else, but really, I think it’s a joke.”

>Taking things a step further, Lennon made the not-so-subtle hint that Jagger and the Stones regularly copied the Beatles: “I would like to just list what we did and what the Stones did two months after on every fuckin’ album. Every fuckin’ thing we did, Mick does exactly the same – he imitates us.”
>Lennon believed his band were being copied across their career: “And I would like one of you fuckin’ underground people to point it out, you know Satanic Majesties is Pepper, ‘We Love You’, it’s the most fuckin’ bullshit, that’s ‘All You Need Is Love’.

>“I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren’t. If the Stones were or are, the Beatles really were too.”

>Lennon doesn’t want to climb down though, “But they are not in the same class, music-wise or power-wise, never were. I never said anything, I always admired them, because I like their funky music and I like their style. I like rock and roll and the direction they took after they got over trying to imitate us, you know, but he’s even going to do Apple now. He’s going to do the same thing.”

>Lennon concluded: “He’s obviously so upset by how big the Beatles are compared with him; he never got over it. Now he’s in his old age, and he is beginning to knock us, you know, and he keeps knocking. I resent it, because even his second fuckin’ record we wrote it for him. Mick said ‘Peace made money’. We didn’t make any money from Peace. You know.”

i like mick jagger so the rolling stones

>>126753095
>>126753104
young paul was 100x more handsome and cooler looking than young mick jagger tho ?

>>126752497 (OP)
Mick Jagger vs Zayn?

>>126753194
Jesus Christ!

>>126753281
Show us your music chart

>>126753213
looks like a faggot. granny music

>>126752497 (OP)
Why is that even a question? The Beatles are on a whole different level compared to The Rolling Stones, two different sports. The Beatles had to break up so The Rolling Stones could stop ripping them off and finally start thinking for themselves and come up with their own music.

>>126752497 (OP)
Beatles because Mick Jagger is a bad vocalist

>>126753281
Kill yourself nigger

>>126753304
granny music

>>126753292
looks beautiful. peak music

>>126753213
Fuck off

>>126753194
>reply without sounding mad
John failed

>>126753312
he's perfect for the music

>>126752497 (OP)
beatles may have been more influential or whatever, but the stones were way more fun, and at the end of the day that's what matters

they both only have 4-5 albums each that actually matter. both pretty good desu. i pick the Stones though because they have no granny cringe plus 70's rock > 60's rock imo

>>126752497 (OP)
The Stones were just better musically. The Beatles experimented at the expense of musical quality. Rock is supposed to be about the back beat, not the production techniques. Both were great, but The Beatles had no blues in them and The Stones did and that's what counts. The Stones were more in touch with rock's roots.

>>126753095
The Stones are my favorite band, but I gotta agree with that one. The Beatles had a better image and were more entertaining as personalities.

>>126753194
>even his second fuckin’ record we wrote it for him. Mick said ‘Peace made money’. We didn’t make any money from Peace. You know
what the fuck does this mean

>>126752497 (OP)
Ozzy and Lemmy prefer The Beatles nuff said

>>126752497 (OP)
The Beatles, but Exile is the best album between their two discographies.

>>126758093
The White Album shits all over Exile

>>126752740
>>126752782
if no one else is going to say it...
The Rolling Stones were industry plants
The Rolling Stones were industry plants
The Rolling Stones were industry plants
The Rolling Stones were industry plants
The Rolling Stones were industry plants

Ill take the Kinks and Who.

>>126757887
>>126758093
>>126758411
>The Beatles were hard men
ngl, i think lemmy was guy

>>126757887
>>126758093
>>126758411
>The Beatles were hard men
ngl, i think lemmy might've been gay

>>126758628
Wishful thinking?

>>126758628
It’s because of >>126752740 and not some gay shit. To Brits this is important. Beatles were hard cause they were working class lads who used to get in fights when touring before they got a record deal. The whole suit thing was the record label trying to clean up their image, before that they dressed in leather jackets.

>>126752550
Literally fast food chain kind of thinking, like if I want to eat a chicken sandwiche I'll go to chick fil a, if I want to eat a cheeseburger I'll go to mcdonalds

Kek the rolling shits literally kept copying what the beatles a year later until the beatles disbanded and TRS just kept putting out blues rock slop after blues rock slop with a good song every 10 years

>>126752497 (OP)
Always been a dumb debate because every serious person knows The Rolling Stones aren't even in the same sport as The Beatles. Only try-hard contrarian "Bealtes are overrated" crybabies pick the Stones. Hell, the Stone's first hit was written by fucking Lennon-McCartney.

I still like The Rolling Stones. Good blues rock band. But come on now be serious.

>>126758887
This thinking is correct though. I don't want McDonald's chicken it sucks, and I wouldn't want a burger from a place that does chicken

Lemmy was right

>>126759919
Lemmy was a faggot whose band sucked