Beatles vs. Stones

Apples vs oranges.  I like both, but to me Beatles are "oldies" while Rolling Stones are still modern.  Perhaps it was aggressiveness of Stones music, that kept them alive.  Yes, The Beatles created many new trends (melodic bass, inclusion of classical etc), but when I, as a young boy, heard Satisfaction for the first time I was stunned - "is it even allowed to play like that"?

@bdp24 - I like watching Mazzy's vids too; he used to come into the record wholesaler in Oakland I was working at when we were both in the local record business in the 70's. And the shrooms are still magical now! 🤣

I remember the big popularity battles in the 60's for a short while between the Beatles and the Monkees. And in retrospect, the Monkees had a lot better songs than they were given credit for. But still. 

The Monkees didn't write their hits (Boyce and Hart wrote a lot of stuff, as did other pro songwriters at that time) or were trusted to play much of anything on the records (except singing) until later in their "post TV" career that generally sucked. Nesmith was a good writer and musician anyway.

The Beatles had more creativity crammed into a relatively short time than anybody before or since, and the Stones were and are a great R&B band with undeniable charisma and style and great rock and roll...I saw the original band with Jones in 1966 and they killed. Still do.

The Beatles.

Both bands started around 1962.  The Beatles ended in 1970.  The Stones are still going (sort of) but almost everything they have produced since the early 70s is vaccuous.  So we should compare largely their respective 60s outputs.

Seen like that, the contest is perhaps closer for many of us.  The Stones music in that period is mainly of high quality.  But certainly not in the Beatles' league.  I was there and lived it.