>The Great Debate
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
You are currently reading a thread in /mu/ - Music
>The Great Debate
They're all ugly
>>63248433
bottom right looks like old one direction
>>63248433
The stones and Loop Zoop lost already
And the Beatles are better than Floyd
Pink Floyd.
Led Zpelin and Roling Stones suck ass. Beatles and Pink Floyd FTW
I'm not sure who the non-Beatles groups are, but bottom right has the best boys.
>>63248433
>not having The Who
nah dude, nah
>>63248501
Dude, even the Stones are better than the Who
Also, Beatles>Floyd>Loop Zoop>Stones
>english bands
lol
>>63248533
The Stones arent that good, and they are the Oasis of their time. They only reason they're considered good is because they were the 'manly men, working class lads' compared to the Beatles. Most 'classic' Stones albums are shite and have like 3 good songs. Who's Next is legit flawless, and Pete Townsend is a better writer then Mick and Keith.
>>63248433
Fuck can't decide between the beatles or pink floyd
>>63248610
>rolling stones = manly men
kek
you don't know what you're talking about at all friend. the Stones are one of the most important bands of all time and are easily better than Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin.
ITT: le wrong generation
Floyd>Beatles>Led Zep>Stones
Zepp>Beatles>Stones>Floyd.
>Inb4 pleb.
Based off of music i enjoy listening to not best Technique wise. That list is
Floyd>Zepp>Beatles>Stones
>>63248433
I have no idea who half these people are because I'm not in my late 50s.
I pick The Animals
Beatles>Zepp>PF>RS
LZ > Stones > Beatles > Floyd
>>63248433
stones>zeppelin=floyd>beatles
Beatles > Stones > Floyd > LZ
PF>LZ>Beatles>RS
>>63248433
>>63249694
Just because you appreciate one generation of music doesn't mean you don't appreciate the others senpai
>>63248433
Beatles > Floyd > Zeppelin > Stones > Who
The Zeppelin and Floyds a don't belong, the Kinks and the Who are a much better fit period-wise.
>people rank Beatles above the Stones
Maybe you'll get it when you grow up.
>>63252824
True. But regardless
Floyd > Zeppelin > Who > Beatles > Kinks > Stones
>>63253110
nopse
Kinks > Stones > Floyd > Zeppelin > Small Faces > Who > Pretty Things > Beatles
>>63248433
Did the Beatles, stones, and Zeppelin make echoes?
No
>>63248610
Who's Next is literally one of the worst Who albums
>>63249694
>>>/plebbit/
>>63253370
>Who's Next is literally one of the worst Who albums
Does anyone have that MSPaint comic of the American jerking off into a jar and then a plane drops it as a care package over Europe? I'd like to edit it so that the American is Brian Wilson and the Europeans are Beatles, Rolling Stones, Floyd, etc.
>>63248433
Only one true answer
>>63253659
>A man and his horse
>>63248610
>Who's Next
ewww
it's their plebeist album ever
Beatles>floyd>zeppelin>rolling stones
All though zeppelin have more good albums than floyd, they went to shit after waters left
>>63253735
How so?
>>63253800
>All though zeppelin have more good albums than floyd
But Floyd had more than three good albums
>>63248433
Replace Led Zeppelin with The Beach Boys
>>63253855
>One album wonder
>>63253904
>what is SMiLE
>>63253904
>>63253950
Surf's Up is easily their best album
Musicianship: Led Zep
Songwriting: Beatles
>>63254120
Creativity: Pink Floyd
Image: Rolling Stones
>>63249540
>easily better than Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin
wew lad
>>63253980
>easily
Oh is it student demonstration time?
>>63253707
>a frog and his horse
>listening to anything by the Who after Tommy
The Beatles is more influential and more important to music, but I listen to Pink Floyd a lot more than I listen to The Beatles
>>63254974
...I DON"T PLAY AN INSTRUMENT NOR KNOW MUSIC THEORY GIVES ME GREAT INSIGHT TO THE WORK OF THE BEATLES
>>63249540
Floyd > Beatles > LZ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stones
>>63254974
Beatles role in history is overrated and Scaruffi is right when he says they stayed a lot closer to doo wop and girl group and other early 60s pop than the other bands of the era (except the Beach Boys) and weren't really a part of the movement towards hard rock/progrock and whatnot, but they just made better music than pretty much every other rock band at the time except maybe the Velvet Underground.
>>63255280
you got it pretty much the other way around
Beatles were immensely important for what came next, there's countless musicians saying that their psychedelic era opened them to the seemingly endless possibilities in rock music. The problem is they didn't hold any candle to any contemporary band, and their fans tend to ascribe to them innovatione that they merely popularized.
Floyd>>>Beatles>Zeppelin>Stones
There's no other right answer.
>>63255371
Sgt. Peppers is just traditional pop music with bells and whistles, compared to the Doors or Cream or Pink Floyd around the same time. It is however really good traditional pop, and A Day in the Life is better than anything those bands ever produced.
>>63255455
>compared to the Doors or Cream
Just blues with bells and whistles
>or Pink Floyd
Just pop with bells and whistles
See how meaningless that is? it works in any scenario
>>63255492
No those bands were changing the composition at a fundamental level that the Beatles really weren't.
>>63248549
Is that Ralf and Florian?
>>63255537
>No those bands were changing the composition at a fundamental level that the Beatles really weren't.
How so?
You might have it backwards
>>63255455
Tomorrow never knows is a game changer
so was Norwegian Wood (even though See My Friend by Kinks came before). And so was Eleanor Rigby altough in a different way.
Then again I'm not really a Beatles fan, as they're are worst kind of fan even, but you have to put things in perspective. The bigger you are the more influence you exert. If you listen to the Piper at the Gates of Dawn you can clearly hear a Beatles influence, even the more "experimental" songs can be described as a radicalization of somehing the Beatles already incorporated. And again, I don't really like them, I personally think most their colleagues during their time were better but to act as they weren't important is just delusional.
>>63255616
They were establishing what rock music would come to mean, the role of guitar solos and how they were written/improvised, how the form of a song could be, the role and style of the vocalist, jam parts, all sorts of things.
I'm having a bit of a hard time arguing for this because I think the hard rock that some of the more innovative 60's bands were developing towards is pretty boring and what the Beatles were doing is a lot more interesting but it is what it is.
>>63248610
>they were the 'manly men, working class lads' compared to the Beatles
kek, The Stones were posh lads but marketed as young ruffians as opposed to The Beatles who were working-class scallies but marketed as besuited young gents that bow to their audience after every song.
>>63255648
I think they're important in that they influenced power pop and melody-oriented acts in later times but that was mainly bringing the music of the past into rock era rather than defining rock like the others were doing.
>>63248433
The Rolling Stones > PF > The Beatles > LZ
>although
Piper > Exile > Led Zeppelin I > Magical Mystery Tour
>>63255730
Ooops looks like you might need to read this
https://2akordi.net/znanje/teorija/beatles.html
Let me know if it's a little over hour head
I don't know to me it's difficult to ascribe Beatles-influenced bands like Nice, Procol Harum, Moody Blues as not innovative or a song like this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F94vHO7okZQ
But then again I should stop defending them since I don't even really like the Beatles. I should start championing the Kinks.
>>63255854
He's right you fucking gimp, that article is about how the Beatles incorporated harmonic progressions from tin pan alley composers (which is traditional pop music) into the standard rock music framework on their early albums, breaking away from simplistic R&B and blues forms. By Sgt Pepper they had pretty much moved past rock music altogether and were basically just making pop music. The Stones and The Doors laid the foundation for future rock music.
>>63255854
I just skimmed it but isn't this just describing their music in technical terms? I didn't see anything there that was unheard of in for example Tin Pan Alley that would make the Beatles particularily revolutionary.
>>63255373
This
>>63255964
meant to quote
>>63255775
The Kinks are better than all
>>63255964
Apart from some weird production there is a very traditional melody at the core of that song. The Beatles were ahead of the curve with a lot of production related things though.
>>63255596
Okay I could kind of see Ralf with the hair but how could you make that connection
>>63256031
>The Stones and The Doors laid the foundation for future rock music.
The Beatles had already done that before them. Sorry.
>>63256037
You didn't finish reading it apparently. Keep trying, maybe you'll get it.
>>63256297
Is the point that they expanded how many chords you could use without modulating to them like you would in Tin Pan Alley? Because I guess that's significant but this would be easier if you'd just present your arguement clearly.
>>63256447
>I guess that's significant but this would be easier if you'd just present your arguement clearly
That link is fairly clear. perhaps you should work on your theory are at least do your research before you say something stupid.
>no Kashmir
>no Achilles Last Stand
>no No Quarter
>no The Rain Song
>no Over The Hills And far Away
Why even be a band
>inB4 m..mu....muh stolen music
>>63256031
She Said She Said laid the blueprint for hundreds of psychy indie bands like Tame Impala to come down the pipie
>>63248533
That's a load of shit. The Who, particularly Pete Townshend, contributed way more to rock music as a whole than the Stones ever did. In fairness, the Stones did fucking nothing to contribute to rock music, but still.
>>63257122
So, which one is getting cucked in that picture ?
>>63257184
None of them they were presented I think platinum discs at a sex show in sweden
>>63257122
>that resolution
but why?
>>63248433
>Limey-glorifying revisionism goes here
>>63257325
My fault familia
>>63257354
Kek
>people putting Rolling Stones last
wew lad
>>63257400
>dadrocker mad that his insignificant band doesn't get any retrospective acclaim
The Stones did nothing but bring "muh attitude" to rock music and stopped mattering to any degree after I Can't Get No (Satisfaction) dropped. Of these four bands they are genuinely fucking irrelevant. Virtually no contribution to the rock music canon, technically unimpressive, very basic songwriting, and an appalling penchant for trendhopping. Why the Who or the Kinks aren't in their place in the OP's pick baffles me.
>>63257460
>Gimme Shelter
>Wild Horses
>Dead Flowers
>>63257460
between the buttons and beggars banquet is better than anything the kinks have ever put out though :)
>>63248433
who gives a rat's ass,just enjoy who you enjoy.
>>63257511
Name one thing any of those three songs contributed to rock music. Spoilers: you can't. I Can't Get No (Satisfaction) is a dull song technically, but at least it brought lyrical topics and a grittyness that didn't quite exist yet to rock. Those songs didn't.
>>63257528
You sure convinced me with that hot opinion, anon.
Beatles >>> Pink Floyd > Led Zeppelin >>>>>>>>>>> Stones
>>63249694
nowhere in the thread did anyone say anything about liking one generation more than the other,you colossal faggot.
>>63257460
The Rolling Stones were probably the most impressive set of talents to come together in Britain before the Soft Machine: decadent vocalist Mick Jagger (who distorted soul crooning and turned it into an animal instinct), rhythm guitarist Keith Richards (who took Chuck Berry's riffs into a new dimension of fractured harmony), multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones (who penned their baroque and psychedelic arrangements), and the phenomenal, funky rhythm section of bassist Bill Wyman and drummer Charlie Watts. Steeped in the blues, the Rolling Stones redefined the rock performer, the rock concert and the rock song. They turned on the degree of vulgarity and provocation to levels that made Chuck Berry look silly. Arguably the greatest rock and roll band of all times, the Rolling Stones revolutionized each of the classical instruments of rock music: the drums incorporated the lascivious tom-tom of tribal folk, the martial pace of military bands and the sophisticated swing of jazz; the guitar amplified the raw and ringing style of Chuck Berry; the bass invented a depraved sound, the singing turned the sensual crooning of soul music in an animal howl, half sleazy lust and half call to arms; and the arragements of keyboards, flutes and exotic instruments completely misinterpreted the intentions of the cultures from which they were borrowed. The revolution carried out by the Rolling Stones was thorough and radical.
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.
After them, not only rock music but western civilization itself will never be the same again.
>>63257630
>and drummer Charlie Watts
>>63257460
>The Stones did nothing but bring "muh attitude" to rock music
>proceeds to champion The Who
>caring this much about innovation and "contributing to the rock music canon"
The Rolling Stones perfected rock music and the fact that you nerds can't appreciate that because they aren't experimenting as much as the other bands really just shows how delusional you are. there's more to music than inventing something new. if you only listen to innovative music you are going to miss out bands that took that innovation and made something great out of it.
>>63257630
Go to bed Scaruffi.
>>63257696
The Who did a shitload more than bring attitude to rock music (and they even did that better than the Stones; My Generation and their onstage antics are practically protopunk). They coined power pop, made one of the first ever rock opera albums, had plenty of technical ability (particularly in Keith Moon), and popularized synthesizer use.
I wouldn't value contributions to rock music as much if the Stones made music that was actually engaging, but they didn't. It's all trendhopping shit that other bands did much, much better. If you're into Jagger's voice then you may like the Stones more than their contemporaries, but the band has no other draws whatsoever.
I would like to point out that You Really Got Me came before and was directly responsible of Satisfaction and My Generation.
>>63257829
What other band was releasing anything that sounded like Between the Buttons, or was as good?
>>63257891
That's a joke, right? The Stones tried harder to sound like the Kinks on that album than any other album by any artist in the history of rock music. And christ, the baroque pop trendhopping. Spare me.
>>63257889
Also, this. The Kinks are the unsung hero of rock music. It astonishes me that people here can underrate a band so widely known.
>>63257891
every other band that released an album around the time
>>63257949
>>63257965
>or was as good
>>63257949
>It astonishes me that people here can underrate a band so widely known.
It's because they were never really famous in the US, thanks to the ban and maybe the overly british attitude
>>63258000
every other band that released an album at the time
>>63258000
>>or was as good
That sounds like a hot opinion you're trying to spin as an argument, anon.
Face it, the only decent run the Stones had was '68 to '72 and even those albums are just above average ~le back to roots!!~ romps which was another trend they hopped on.
>>63258024
Seconding.
>>63258024
Wrong
>>63258045
>muh relativism
Fuck off
>>63258074
>out of arguments
Stonesfags, ladies and gentlemen.
Maybe you should go sing the praise of your monkey-lipped snorerock band to your dad.
>>63258074
>muh relativism
you started that argument yourself my guy.
face it. Stones were the most boring of the "british invasion"
>>63258115
There was no argument for me to counter you illiterate retard
>>63258158
Yeah, because you responded to a post that was in turn responding to your saying "I think the Stones did thing better than other bands!"
There was no argument because you never posed one. You've been doing nothing but tossing around hot onions and playing down the fact that the Stones were trendhoppers. You have no argument because, for the Stones, there IS no argument. Nobody can play them up like they're worth giving a shit about because they aren't. Sorry.
>>63258156
>you started that argument yourself my guy.
[citation needed]
>face it. Stones were the most boring of the "british invasion"
This is what plebeians actually believe
>>63258045
>That sounds like a hot opinion you're trying to spin as an argument
this entire argument on both sides is nothing but opinions doofus
>>63258206
>Yeah, because you responded to a post that was in turn responding to your saying "I think the Stones did thing better than other bands!"
Which was in turn responding to another post saying "I think other bands did thing better than the Stones!"
So much doublethink ITT
>>63258212
>this is what plebeians actually believe.
this is what plebeians actually believe
>>63258214
>this entire argument on both sides is nothing but opinions doofus
Except that's wrong. You can look at the Stones objectively by analysing their contributions to rock music and concluding that they contributed fucking nothing and were literally lagging behind every single solitary trailblazing British rock act for five to six clean years. They're pathetic.
>>63258212
>plebians buzzword
Yeah, you've given up.
>>63258267
Except the Stones are measurably less significant than their contemporaries, unless you're going to sit here continuing to pretend that the fact that they followed the trends set by other rock acts is irrelevant some more.
>>63258298
Anon don't be silly, it's turtles all the way down!
>>63258299
>le you have le given le up xD
>le i le win face xD
>Except the Stones are measurably less significant than their contemporaries
[ c i t a t i o n n e e d e d ]
>>63258299
>Except that's wrong. You can look at the Stones objectively by analysing their contributions to rock music and concluding that they contributed fucking nothing and were literally lagging behind every single solitary trailblazing British rock act for five to six clean years. They're pathetic.
Except that contributed by introducing dark themes and overtones to rock, as well as contributing to the overt anti-establishment "rock attitude"
>Except the Stones are measurably less significant than their contemporaries, unless you're going to sit here continuing to pretend that the fact that they followed the trends set by other rock acts is irrelevant some more.
There are tons of bands directly influenced by The Stones, who were not interested in pure songcraft (like The Beatles).
>>63258346
>[ c i t a t i o n n e e d e d ]
I've spent the entire argument saying why. I'm not repeating myself.
>>63258380
>Except that contributed by introducing dark themes and overtones to rock, as well as contributing to the overt anti-establishment "rock attitude"
I've addressed that they brought "muh attitude" to rock with I Can't Get No (Satisfaction). And then? That's it. Nothing else.
>>63258462
>I've spent the entire argument saying why. I'm not repeating myself.
lol no you haven't, you just keep on namedropping other bands you think did "the same thing" but better without elaborating on why or even what musical elements the Stones supposedly stole from these other musicians
>>63258462
>I've addressed that they brought "muh attitude" to rock with I Can't Get No (Satisfaction). And then?
Like almost all of their other hits? Jumping Jack Flash, etc It was their shtick
The Beatles > Pink Floyd > The Who >>> Loop Zoop >>> The Rolling Stones
>>63258510
>lol no you haven't, you just keep on namedropping other bands you think did "the same thing" but better without elaborating on why or even what musical elements the Stones supposedly stole from these other musicians
Sorry, am I supposed to be spoonfeeding you here? Maybe you should learn what the fuck you're talking about before asking me to give you an abridged history of the rock canon circa 1965 to 1968. Everything from psychedelic rock to baroque pop to roots rock to country-laced rock, it's all copped from whatever trends other bands had set before them. Even I Can't Get No (Satisfaction) stems from the grit of "You Really Got Me" and the 'fuck off' lyrical content of "Like a Rolling Stone". The Stones had no fucking cojones despite being labelled as the manly rock group of the 60s.
>>63258528
"And then?" was referring to "And then what did they contribute?" The answer, of course, being nothing.
>>63258657
>And then what did they contribute?"
What else did anyone contribute? Did they NEED to? That was an import thing they contributed. it's what many people identify most as the "soul of rock n roll", and as I said, directly influenced countless other bands who created new genres. Do you think VU gave a damn about The Beatles? No, they cared about The Stones.
Syd Barrett is the only talented one in that image
>>63258793
lol
>>63258731
>What else did anyone contribute?
Jesus fucking christ.
>>63258801
We're talking British acts, anon.
>implying
>>63258731
John Cale has namedropped The Beatles as an influence on him.
Bob Dylan was more of an influence than any of the bands mentioned in this thread anyhow.
>>63258731
"They were a driving force in the Velvets, and made us work harder and got us on our bikes. Rubber Soul was where you were forced to deal with them as something other than a flash in the pan. It was rich in ideas and I loved the way George managed to find a way to include all those Indian instruments. Lou and I had tried to work with the sarinda. We were only playing it just to get a noise but I realized you could play melody on the sitar as good as Norwegian Wood. Norwegian Wood had this atmosphere of being very acid. I don’t think anybody has ever got that sound or that feeling as well as the Beatles."
- John Cale
Thanks for displaying the universal musical retardation that Stones fans suffer from.
>>63258657
>Sorry, am I supposed to be spoonfeeding you here? Maybe you should learn what the fuck you're talking about before asking me to give you an abridged history of the rock canon circa 1965 to 1968
Is this irony or some kind of avant-garde shitposting? When adults have a debate we usually attempt to support our claims with some kind of evidence, especially when making a claim as controversial as the one you're making. This is literally as retarded as campaigning for the flat earth theory, and when challenged to back up your arguments, responding with "hurr i'm not here to teach you science from the ground up, do your own research you fucking blind sheeple".
>Even I Can't Get No (Satisfaction) stems from the grit of "You Really Got Me"
I'd love to see you draw some meaningful musical comparisons between those two songs.
the velvet underground
>>63258980
>him
Not relevant.
>>63259027
>John Cale
Not relevant
>>63258826
>Jesus fucking christ.
Nice non answer.
>>63259029
>Is this irony or some kind of avant-garde shitposting? When adults have a debate we usually attempt to support our claims with some kind of evidence, especially when making a claim as controversial as the one you're making.
Great, two things, you nonce:
1) It's INCREDIBLY well documented and agreed upon by anyone who cares about rock music/60s music that the Stones were trendhoppers. Do some of your own fucking research. There's a difference between substantiating my argument and spoonfeeding you.
2) I literally went on to substantiate my point after I said that. Way to conveniently ignore it.
>I'd love to see you draw some meaningful musical comparisons between those two songs.
It has nothing to do with the composition. It's the recording quality, vocal performance, and the lyrics. You're deaf if you can't hear how edgy You Really Got Me was at the time.
>>63259082
>>John Cale
>Not relevant
Someone please fucking shoot me.
>>63259099
>>Not relevant
To the VU?
Not really. It was the Lou Reed Show.
>>63259099
>It's INCREDIBLY well documented and agreed upon by anyone who cares about rock music/60s music that the Stones were trendhoppers.
[citation needed]
>2) I literally went on to substantiate my point after I said that. Way to conveniently ignore it.
IIRC you went on to list a bunch of genre labels. I hope you don't seriously think that constitutes an argument.
>It has nothing to do with the composition. It's the recording quality, vocal performance, and the lyrics.
In other words, extra-musical bullshit that only clueless rockists care about.
>>63259117
>To the VU?
>Not really. It was the Lou Reed Show.
Someone *please* fucking shoot me.
>>63259187
>[citation needed]
Do your own fucking research.
>IIRC you went on to list a bunch of genre labels. I hope you don't seriously think that constitutes an argument.
I listed off genres that the Stones started delving into after their contemporaries did it.
>In other words, extra-musical bullshit that only clueless rockists care about.
>rockists
Thanks for convincing me 100% that you're an idiot.
>>63259117
That's why there was such a noticeable change in style the moment Cale left.
Run Run Run is clearly influenced by the Stones
who /Monkees/ here?
Pink Floyd.
Literally no other valid choice.
Pink Floyd/Beatles > Rolling Stones > Led Zeppelin, In my opinion, but they don't sound alike and really shouldn't be compared
>>63259212
>Do your own fucking research.
That's not how a debate works. If it's so well-documented it shouldn't take you long to find a scholarly resource that supports your assertion.
>I listed off genres
This was your first mistake. Genres are merely descriptive terms used by listeners for categorising music. Saying "X band played Y genre before Z band" carries relatively little useful information about the actual musical content of either artist's oeuvre. Describe genre norms, don't simply mention genre names.
>Thanks for convincing me 100% that you're an idiot.
?
>>63259301
>60s pop/rock
>they don't sound alike
lel
>>63259364
>That's not how a debate works.
Except this isn't a formal debate. We are on the internet, and through the power of the internet, you are capable of doing your own fucking research on this insanely well documented subject. If you want to think I'm wrong because I refuse to spoonfeed you because I have better things to do with my time, then so be it.
>?
You didn't use the word "rockist" correctly. And using it to begin with is fucking stupid. Hence, idiot.
>>63259393
>le epic reductionism
>>63259453
>I have better things to do with my time
Refer to >>63259364
>If it's so well-documented it shouldn't take you long to find a scholarly resource that supports your assertion.
I'm not sure what kind of tight schedule you're on exactly, but if it's that difficult for you to find any source that actually agrees with you there's a good chance it's because you're talking bullshit.
>You didn't use the word "rockist" correctly.
I did.
>And using it to begin with is fucking stupid.
Rockist detected.
>>63248433
Is it bad that I don't recognise any of these ppl?
>>63259731
Only if you're interested in rock music.
>>63259664
>there's a good chance it's because you're talking bullshit.
It's going to be fucking hilarious when you encroach on the territory of rock fans and slowly discover that I've been right this entire fucking time and your own laziness was the only thing convincing you otherwise.
>>63259848
We can only hope this thread is still up by that point, so I can reply to you one last time and tell you I was wrong ;^)
>>63255198
You must be at least 18 to be on this board
>>63259731
Nah I pretty much just listen to Hip Hop, but like good jazzy hip hop like kendrick lamar
>>63259212
>Someone *please* fucking shoot me.
If only.
>>63259228
>Cale left.
Which is why it's not relevant.
>Do your own fucking research.
It's your argument, you need to prove it.
>>63259187
>extra-musical bullshit
Except recording quality and vocal performance are intrinsically tied to the music, and the lyrics are 50% of a song (which all these bands were writing).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmb7TU0OrOI
>>63260383
I hate the jews
>>63248433
no debate
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5G3tN6Qte3U
