The Rolling Stones debut "Angry" music video starring Sydney Sweeney

[mayjailer]

Click to view

The Rolling Stones are back, it seems. Today the band premiered the music video for "Angry," the first single off their forthcoming 26th studio album (in the US) Hackney Diamonds, starring actress Sydney Sweeney.

The album, scheduled for release October 20th, will feature guest appearances by Lady Gaga ("Sweet Sounds of Heaven") and Paul

Comments

[myhipusername]

im so glad the beatles (superior band here) broke up like 40 years ago bc i cant imagine them still releasing music

[jojito]

I agree. At least once a month I'm thankful they broke up because if they hadn't, we wouldn't have George's incredible music.

And say whatever you want about McCartney's current music, but at least he's not parading young half naked women on his videos like he's still cool.

[myhipusername]

exactly. paul knows his place lol

[skyler_white_yo]

He seems content being rock’s cool grandpa.

[rihaty]

Rolling Stones are superior tbh, the Beatles are so overrated.

[jennanne801]

I gave you the thumbs up because IMO, the Stones ARE the superior band. That said, The Beatles were also a great band and I don't necessarily agree that they're overrated, I just prefer the Stones music.

I miss Charlie.

[rihaty]

I do like the Beatles and I love Paul’s solo stuff but they’re not The Greatest Band of All Time. I don’t know what band *is* to be honest, I am not necessarily saying it’s the Rolling Stones. But as I’ve gotten older I don’t go back to the Beatles as much as I go back to the Stones.

[joy_scenic]

It's tough because if we go on instrumentals, a band like Van Halen but if it's vocals, a band like Queen. It would be hard to find a band that can be superior in every criteria.

[jennanne801]

Agreed! I was way more of a fan of the solo stuff by George and John than I was by Paul's solo work, however. Paul's music is pretty safe and boring to me.

I loved the Beatles when I was a kid, and I'll always have a fondness. But the Stones were my jam. And they introduced me to so many different genres - blues, country reggae. I just always found their music much more interesting, far less sanitized and much more dangerous. If you know what I mean.

[burntbussy]

[myhipusername]

girl bye!

they completely changed music in the 60s and had a greater impact imo

not saying the rolling stones dont have good songs themselves or were successful in their own right (they got a whole magazine named after em lol) but revolver by the beatles alone wipes out all of their discography

[rihaty]

Revolver is my favorite album of theirs so I don’t totally disagree, but I think the l Stones’ discography as a whole is just overall more interesting. The first half of the Beatles’ discography was just Motown/rock n roll lite.

They were super popular and it’s hard to separate that from their actual work. They changed culture more than anything...

[myhipusername]

you know what, youre right about that.. but great taste about revolver being your fave. its such a unique album, elenaor rigby gives me chills. the beatles just pulls out more emotion out of me!

isnt it super interesting to think about? how much culture has changed with both of these bands. i give a lot of credit to both of them. and it all happening in such a short period too

[rihaty]

It is really crazy! I also prefer a lot of Paul’s solo work. But the Beatles were so young when they first started so makes sense they needed time to grow.

[dull_and_wicked]

and mcdonald's changed the food industry forever but that doesn't mean there aren't better restaurants that exist lol

[myhipusername]

and yet i dont think the beatles were that bad, they have great music idk why youre trying to prove a point over opinions lmfao dumb

theres a reason why theyre still referenced all these years later, just like other culturally impactful artists of their time