Which one, /mu/?
http://strawpoll.me/7228762
The Stones by far.
The Beatles by far.
>boring annoying blues rock vs most influential band of all time
woah that's hard
The Beatles by far.
Anyone who says the Stones legitimately has a brain defect.
>>63684082
Beatles for kids, Stones for grown ups.
Kanye is better
>>63684793
>American """""music"""""
>>63684793
How do you go from this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkPy18xW1j8
To this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz0SnpN_O00
are the Stones the most irrelevant band to ever exist? how are they so famous?
>>63684793
this
>>63684894
Because they have some brilliant albums, had you ever bothered to listen to some of them.
>>63684617
>most influential band of all time
kek
>>63684894
They have a series of excellent singles and are a pretty great live band, not to mention pretty much created the template of what we know as rock music now.
With that said, I choose the band with better songwriters, production and more forward-thinking ideas.
>>63684807
Your bait couldn't be more obvious. It's always Kanye fans who try to start an argument.
Anyways, Beatles. They are on a whole other level the Stones can't even touch.
The Rolling Stones are fucking awful. Why are they ever compared to the Beatles? Becuase theyre both 60s rock bands? It's like comparing Poison to R.E.M.
Tried listening to Let It Bleed the other day and wasn't really a fan. Thought something was wrong with me, but, judging from this thread I guess I'm not alone.
>>63684793
better poll would be beatles v beach boys
>>63685075
>8 great albums vs. 1 great album
Yeah ok
>>63684082
What do they have in common that makes them comparable musically?
>>63685003
>The Rolling Stones are fucking awful.
I disagree but think you're right about the rest.
>>63684926
The Stones' albums are fucking terrible though. They are a singles band through and through.
>>63684971
>pretty much created the template of what we know as rock music now.
>mfw
Beatles but only because stones sold out to Call of duty
>>63685169
>i don't know what rock is
>then it must be b8
Yikes
All The Beatles fan boys itt.
Give me Rolling Stones swagger any day.
>Aftermath
>Their Satanic Majesties Request
>Sticky Fingers
>Goats Head Soup
>Exile on Main Street
>Tattoo You
>>63685127
>8 great albums vs. 1 grerat album
Today is also great (outside of one final filler track). And if you include The Smile Sessions alongside Pet Sounds, that's three top-to-bottom great albums. Arguably, Pet Sounds and SMiLE are better than anything The Beatles ever attempted.
The thing is, you really need to judge on if one superior album and one superior incomplete album beat 4+ great albums. Mind also that the Beach Boys had one talent (Brian Wilson) while the Beatles had four talents (Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and George Martin). Brian probably had the greatest output if you compare all of these people individually against each other.
stones really only have 2 albums that are above a 6.5/10
>>63685196
>le rolling stones literally made rock music because they were le first group of white guys with guitars to have ATTITUDE!!! and be LEWD!!!
Fuck off. The Beatles had the image and Bob Dylan had more attitude in one finger than the members of the Stones had combined.
>>63685226
>if you include The Smile Sessions alongside Pet Sounds
Why would you? You should probably include The Beatles Anthology 1, 2 and 3 as well.
>The thing is, you really need to judge on if one superior album and one superior incomplete album beat 4+ great albums
Quantity vs quality? One artist has both.
>Brian probably had the greatest output if you compare all of these people individually against each other.
Ooops you seemed to forgot his army of sound engineers, The Wrecking Crew, his lyricists and of course the rest of the Beach Boys.
>>63685240
To be honest, if you've seen Gimme Shelter you'll see The Rolling Stones were pretty intense. I'm not saying I like their music since I don't: but yeah, give them a little more credit where credit is due.
>>63685240
>The Beatles had the image
Not the "rock" image.
>Bob Dylan had more attitude
I'm listening to The Times They Are a Changing and I'm not hearing it. Care to explain?
>>63685285
You mean the butt rock image...
>>63685240
Oh ok. A liverpool boy band, the One Direction of the '60s and a folk singer with a silver spoon up.his ass.
The Stones were absolute filth. Just ask Marianne Faithful or Annie Liebowitz. Those bitches barely survived partying with The Stones
>>63685276
The Who and the Kinks were intense too. My Generation and You Really Got Me kicked harder than anything the Stones wrote. The Stones were just an early onset of "lewd" rock music.
>Not the "rock" image.
>rock music is explicitly and rigidly defined as a group of white kids singing about sexual topics!
Fuck off.
>I'm listening to The Times They Are a Changing and I'm not hearing it. Care to explain?
This is a joke, right? Is someone this ignorant of Bob Dylan actually browsing this board?
>>63685307
Nice bait.
>>63685226
I'd argue that McCartney was better than the other 3 Beatles + Brian Wilson combined.
U guys are idiots
>>63685263
>The Wrecking Crew
They were a tool Brian used. They were good at playing the instruments but they weren't composing the songs or anything. I mean half of Brian's technique was playing the studio.
>rest of the Beach Boys
Same as above.
>lyricists
Okay, fair enough. Brian was pretty weak at lyrics. But if you think the lyrics matter a lot on any of Brian's records then you're seriously mistaken.
>>63685226
>Arguably, Pet Sounds and SMiLE are better than anything The Beatles ever attempted.
arguably, you can argue about anything
>>63685322
>I have no fucking idea what I'm talking about
>I'll call it bait
>>63685346
>They were a tool Brian used
Like George Martin was a tool The Beatles used
>I mean half of Brian's technique was playing the studio.
Or rather his engineers were (or Phil Spector, whom Brian stole his ideas from).
>But if you think the lyrics matter
They wouldn't be there if they didn't.
>>63685307
Solid b8 my friend
>>63685381
>Like George Martin was a tool The Beatles used
>believing this
You should read up on his involvement with the Beatles. He offered up some of the most radical things the band did and included a lot of stuff on songs that they didn't know how to do, like the crazy sound effects in Mr. Kite. He was MUCH more than a tool; he was extremely involved. Why do you think he gets called the Fifth Beatle? It's not like the Wrecking Crew are called the Sixth Beach Boy.
>Or rather his engineers were (or Phil Spector, whom Brian stole his ideas from).
You're delusional if you think anyone would think less of Brian as a producer just because he wanted to expand on Phil Spector's production techniques.
>>63685226
>Mind also that the Beach Boys had one talent (Brian Wilson) while the Beatles had four talents (Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and George Martin).
are you implying that a band with 20 great talents would be by far the greatest band ever?
So much better than Sgt. Peppers
>>63685410
You posted the literal opposite of the truth though
>>63685418
>You should read up on his involvement with the Beatles
Are you talking to yourself here?
>He offered up some of the most radical things the band did and included a lot of stuff on songs that they didn't know how to do
...under Lennon/McCartney's instruction.
>It's not like the Wrecking Crew are called the Sixth Beach Boy.
Watch the doc on them; it is 100% true those group of musicians were utilized because they could play better than most, specifically the parts that Brian and the rest of the band could not.
>You're delusional
You are uneducated in this topic. Why bother responding?
>expand
How so?
>>63685440
solid b8
>>63685381
>George Martin was a tool
You don't use a producer as a tool, you goof.
>stole Phil Spector's ideas
Welcome to influences in music.
>>63685381
>they wouldn't be there if they didn't
Haha finish my sentence and reread the context and rebuff it correctly next time. Never said they didn't matter, just that they don't matter a lot. By that I mean Brian expressed the emotion in his songs through the actual compositions and the lyrics were more afterthoughts than anything. Not that they're bad, the lyrics in God Only Knows and Heroes and Villains are great.
>>63685454
>Are you talking to yourself here?
No, it's pretty obvious I'm talking to you. See below.
>...under Lennon/McCartney's instruction.
Hit me up with the story about how McCartney told George Martin he wanted a string quartet on Yesterday.
>Watch the doc on them; it is 100% true those group of musicians were utilized because they could play better than most, specifically the parts that Brian and the rest of the band could not.
On about two albums, yeah. Still never heard them cited as the Sixth Beach Boy. I wonder why? Oh, because they were a temporary phase in the Beach Boys career and were never permanently tied to the band at any point, because they were session musicians. Are the Wrecking Crew also considered members of every band they've played for, like the Mamas and the Papas? Do you not know how session musicians work?
>You are uneducated in this topic. Why bother responding?
I'm far more educated on this topic than you.
>How so?
He took the idea that Spector had to layer several of the same instrument by having multiple played at once and used it to create entirely new sounds by also playing different instruments alongside each other, creating a new sound entirely. The product of his production technique is far and away superior to Spector's, and you're honestly deaf if you can't tell the difference between a Wilson production and a Spector production. Any music historian or child of the '60s would tell you the same.
Like all the beta Slint cuck boys on /mu/ could handle The Rolling Stones
>>63685494
>You don't use a producer as a tool
You should read up on his involvement with the Beatles
>Welcome to influences in music.
Then don't call it an original thought if it's not
>Haha finish my sentenc
Not relevant. If you intentional ignore a piece of the song that was specifically put there by the artist (in order to be right or at least validate your own opinions) then you are not listening to music correctly
>Brian expressed the emotion in his songs through the actual compositions
Just like The Beatles. Hence it's not relevant
>>63685515
>No, it's pretty obvious I'm talking to you
Wouldn't make much sense since I've alreday demonstrated I know more about this than you. What addition of Lewisohn do you have?
>Hit me up with the story about how McCartney told George Martin he wanted a string quartet on Yesterday
You mean of the example of McCartney instructing him? You're only proving my point.
>On about two albums
You mean four, one of which is cherry picked as their masterpiece and the fourth wasn't even finished by still touted as another masterpiece
>I'm far more educated on this topic than you.
Prove it.
>He took the idea that Spector had to layer several of the same instrument by having multiple played at once and used it to create entirely new sounds by also playing different instruments alongside each other
Except Spector also had different instruments. Or are you one of those individuals who think Wilson was the first one to use different instruments in pop music?
>The product of his production technique is far and away superior to Spector's
How so? Please exclude fanboyism in your answer.
>>63684082
>>63685670
The Beatles > The Who > The Stones
Nice try though.
>>63685610
>if you intentionally ignore a piece of the song
Never said that.
>Just like The Beatles
John was as much about the lyrics as the compositions.
I give up.
It's obviously The Beatles, but some of you niggas are seriously underrating The Rolling Stones.
>>63685715
>I give up.
Thanks for playing
>>63685610
>What addition of Lewisohn do you have?
You mean "edition". And are you talking about the three volume biography that only has a single volume? I own that one. I own that one volume. I don't know what other ones you thought I could own considering there is only one finished.
>You mean of the example of McCartney instructing him? You're only proving my point.
Except he didn't instruct him. It was entirely George's idea and he had to convince Paul that it was a good one. Paul was extremely unsure about it.
>You mean four, one of which is cherry picked as their masterpiece and the fourth wasn't even finished by still touted as another masterpiece
Four albums over 2-3 years is not a significant portion when their entire career has spanned over 50.
>Prove it.
I have.
>Except Spector also had different instruments. Or are you one of those individuals who think Wilson was the first one to use different instruments in pop music?
Of course he had different instruments, but he didn't place them specifically to fuse their sounds together. It's also worth noting that Wilson's choice of instrumentation was far, far more eclectic (case in point: the electro theremin).
>How so? Please exclude fanboyism in your answer.
Falling back on "you're a fanboy" is a common indicator that one has lost the argument. As if I needed further proof.
Every time I see a thread on /mu/ with exclusive discussion of music from before the 2000s, it reaffirms that this board is overwhelmingly composed of high schoolers who know jack shit about music.
>>63685826
>You mean "edition".
Oh look you don't know what you are talking about
>Except he didn't instruct him
[citation needed]
>Four albums over 2-3 years is not a significant portion when their entire career has spanned over 50.
Oh the crappy, irrelevant albums?
>but he didn't place them specifically to fuse their sounds together
Prove it
>As if I needed further proof.
See above. Waiting on some citations.
beatles
i think exile on main street is a better album than anything the beatles ever did though
Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main St. is a better run of consecutive albums than any The Beatles ever had.
Prove me wrong.
>>63685837
Except high schoolers are more likely to discuss post-2000 music, being only interested in current music (le rite generation).
Stay salty though.
>>63685889
Revolver, Rubber Soul, Sgt Pepper, White Album, Abbey Road
>>63685889
>>63685913
exile on main street > abbey road > revolver > sticky fingers > rubber soul > let it bleed > beggars banquet > sgt peppers > white album
prove me wrong
>>63685894
That's the point. But the faggots on this board don't just stick to what they know. They have discussions like this and look like idiots.
Mfw this thread.
The Rolling Stones have absolutely nothing on The Beatles. It's like comparing AC/DC to Led Zeppelin. Not to say that The Rolling Stones or AC/DC were bad, just not comparable.
>>63685454
George Martin had a massive impact on The Beatles work, and most of it wouldn't even sound the way it did if it weren't for him and Geoff Emerick. Strawberry Fields would probably have been shelved if not for them.
The Wrecking Crew were incredible, but the Brian was best at directing them (with Paul Simon second).
>>63685950
The Wrecking Crew had a massive impact on The Beach Boys work, and most of it wouldn't even sound the way it did if it weren't for him and Chuck Britz. Good Vibrations would probably have been shelved if not for them.
George Martin was incredible, but Paul & John were best at directing him (with America second).
>>63685751
Pretty much this.
Of course it's the Beatles but there are some really solid stones albums. Calling then shit is just ignorant.
>>63685944
>That's the point
Nice backpedaling
>They have discussions like this and look like idiots.
Like who?
>>63685856
>Oh look you don't know what you are talking about
Pardon me if your nonsensical usage of the word "addition" confused me. If you were asking which of his books I own, why didn't you just say so?
>[citation needed]
Any authority on the band anywhere.
>Oh the crappy, irrelevant albums?
Way to wear your bias on your sleeve, bud. Good thing I haven't wasted my energy disparaging the Beatles.
>Prove it
Prove that he did. Every detail I've read about his specific Wall of Sound technique (mainly on wikipedia) has shown zero indication that he ever tried fusing the sound of several different instruments into one.
>See above. Waiting on some citations.
What do you want citations for this time? Why do you need citations if you're so well read? How can I cite the very subjective claim that Wilson's production techniques are superior to Spector's? Why would I waste my energy attempting to prove that claim when you can just disagree with it since you clearly don't care for Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys?
>>63685826
>It was entirely George's idea and he had to convince Paul that it was a good one. Paul was extremely unsure about it.
I think Paul was more unsure about releasing it under "The Beatles" name.
>>63686049
>Pardon me if your nonsensical usage of the word "addition" confused me
As in additional corrections/material
>If you were asking which of his books I own, why didn't you just say so?
It's telling that you didn't understand in the first place. Maybe you needed time to google it, idk
>Any authority on the band anywhere.
Not a citation. Try again
>Way to wear your bias on your sleeve
What bias? I love both artist. But I wouldn't want you to hurt your hand grasping at all those straws anon
>Prove that he did
You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you. You won't do it though, because you don't know what you are talking about and you are making up random shit to cover your tracks.
>What do you want citations for this time?
Did you read my reply?
Still waiting.
>since you clearly don't care for Brian Wilson or the Beach Boys?
I love them. What are you on about?
>>63686012
Unless he, you know, hired a bunch of other session musicians to play exactly the same thing, whilst he continued to write, arrange, engineer, record and produce the albums.
The Beatles would often approach George Martin with "Hey man could you like, magic some circus noises out of thin air please? I need my new songs to sound like an LSD trip I had the other night" or "You George, do you mind spending hours joining these two pieces of music that are in completely different keys together whilst the lads and I go and drop acid again?"
The Beatles are great, but they really owe it to George Martin and perhaps should have showed him a little more respect for practically and innovatively realising their visions.
>>63685939
White Album > Rubber Soul > Abbey Road > Let it Bleed > Revolver > Sgt Peppers > Exile > Beggars
>>63686239
this is literally the most objectively wrong rankings i have ever seen in my life
>>63686029
How was there any backpedaling? The original comment implied they were more likely to discuss post-2000s music because that's what they're familiar with and know well. I said that when they venture outside of it, there's a high chance they're going to sound like retards.
Not everyone, but I can't take a 16 year old talking about the impact and cultural significance of artists with whom they only have second-hand knowledge seriously. Every opinion they have is diluted by the opinions of someone/something they read on the internet. This doesn't apply to everyone. Only those who state their opinions as if they're facts. Only a high schooler would be offended by this comment, so you should know exactly where you stand.
But yeah, I'm a LE SALTY BACKPEDDLER XD
Pic related, It's where you learned reading comprehension and debate ability.
>the beatles or the rolling stones?
Oh, seriously?
>>63686284
post your ranking(s) friendo
>>63686157
>As in additional corrections/material
I've not heard of the word being used in this way.
To answer your question, like I said, I own the first volume of his planned three-volume biography. I've read a pdf of the Complete Beatles Recording Sessions book.
>Not a citation. Try again
a
>What bias? I love both artist. But I wouldn't want you to hurt your hand grasping at all those straws anon
If you loved the Beach Boys you'd bother to listen to their stuff after SMiLE. I've never met a self proclaimed fan of the band who doesn't enjoy Sunflower or Surf's Up.
>You made the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you. You won't do it though, because you don't know what you are talking about and you are making up random shit to cover your tracks.
If I haven't read anything about Spector doing that, I'm going to assume Brian did it first. If that's an unfair assumption, then so be it. Spector was not a spectacularly adventurous person and I have no reason to believe he thought of that before Brian, who was much more "out there".
>Did you read my reply?
I assume you want citations for my claim that Wilson's approach to Spector's is superior, which I addressed by saying I can't provide any because it's entirely subjective but commonly agreed upon. Did you read my reply?
>I love them. What are you on about?
Again, clearly you don't. You proclaimed everything outside of a three year period to be crappy and irrelevant when this band has been around for over 50 years. You can't in good faith call yourself a fan of a band when you like less than 10% of their output.
>>63686225
What is obnoxious is Brianfags who like to use selective logic, to suggest that Brian somehow magically write and recorded everything, but yet The Beatles did not, when both parties were using the same methodology. Just listen to the Smile bootlegs, you can literally hear Brian instructing the Wrecking Crew just as Lennon and McCartney instructed George and Geoff.
Never ceases to amaze me how delusional they are.
>>63684868
The Beach Boys might be the most dramatic fall from grace in the history of music.
>>63686338
Didn't see any citations in your post, so I didn't read it.
Try one last time.
>>63686338
>a
Oops, I left this as a placeholder while I dug a source up and forgot.
As for a citation, Craig Cross discusses McCartney and Martin's conflict regarding the string quartet addition in "The Beatles: Day-by-Day, Song-by-Song, Record-by-Record". Dunno what page by heart, sorry. But I am sure you have read it.
>>63686379
Nice job prematurely ignoring the entire post. See >>63686382
Now address the rest of my post. Or are you afraid to because you're backed up against a wall on all fronts?
Also
>still asking me to cite a source on a subjective claim
>>63686338
>You can't in good faith call yourself a fan of a band when you like less than 10% of their output
Why not? Just because a band produced a glut of music doesn't mean you have to enjoy every shittier-than-the-last release. There are plenty of bands with only a single great album I'd consider myself a "fan" of
>>63686407
>Nice job prematurely ignoring the entire post
Did it have a citation in it?
>Now address the rest of my post
Does it make excuses for the fact that you had no real argument, so you claimed "Oh you must hate The beach Boys!" only to find out I love them?
If so, I'm not really interested in misdirection. Please stay on task if you want my attention.
>>63686448
>Did it have a citation in it?
It would have if I hadn't forgotten to grab one. But I did here, since you're so transfixed on this >>63686407
In fact, here's another source:
>At that point, his acoustic performance in the can, George Martin suggested something radical. Pleased with the session, the Beatles' producer adjourned with McCartney to look over his new home round the corner in Cavendish Avenue. 'Why don't we get some strings, a violin, a cello . . . perhaps we could go for a very different sound. It sounds very nice, but perhaps it needs something.'
>Paul was appalled at the thought. 'Are you kidding) The Beatles is a rock 'n' roll group! We can't end up sounding like Mantovani!' Wide though his tastes always were, Paul was already feeling exposed by the song's solo treatment, and he now felt defensive of the Beatles' reputation as the hippest band on the planet. He recoiled from the worry that something too syrupy might happen if strings were added.
>Always the diplomat, George Martin tried another route. 'Let's try it, with, say, a string quartet. Just try it. If you hate it, we can wipe it and you can go back to playing it on your own.' He underlined his belief that it would not suit a full Beatles performance, but it sounded as if it needed some extra instrumentation. Paul remembers: 'I said: "That sounds like a good deal."
from Roy Coleman: Yesterday and Today.
>>63686444
You'd be foolish to consider yourself of a band when you literally only like four of their ~20 albums. You'd be foolish to claim you "love" a band when you only enjoy less than 10% of their output and only give a shit about one of their members. I would never claim to love the Beatles since I only like Revolver and I only like Paul. That's common sense. You're overstating your fondness for the Beach Boys dramatically, and all in the spirit of trying to prove me wrong at every turn. Who's grasping for straws here?
>Please stay on task
After you.
>>63684868
Jeez, that was bad.
>>63686578
Damn son no need to burn him that hard
>>63686372
there's always U2
>>63687301
The quality of U2's musical output fell without question, but nowhere near as badly as The Beach Boys'.
U2's "fall from grace" is mostly due to public image and Bono's supposed pretentiousness.
>>63684082
The Velvet Underground
>>63684868
What does /mu/ think of this song?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKqd_9Xx9IQ
>>63686239
>>63685939
>beggars that low
>>63687386
hey scaruffi
>>63686578
Why would that be foolish? If you only really "like" an album or two from a band's discography, but listen to them regularly, you're still a fan. Btw i'm not the same guy you're going back and forth with, just making a general point
I want Beatlesfags to leave
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC0Qt1lvLq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suMgW0KW3jQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9R5KAmIOBkA
>>63687388
it makes me uncomfortable and the drums remind me of Home Improvement
