The Stones are a purist's choice, for sure. I admire them more with each passing year.
However, the form has become so broad over the years that "greatest" labels have really become meaningless. What The Beatles were trying to do is only marginally related to what The Stones were trying to do, so - for me - a comparison is pointless. It will come down to semantics (What is really Rock n Roll?) and, as mentioned above, the purists probably come down on The Stones side of the fence while those with a broader definition might choose The Beatles, et al. Reasonable mainstream cases can also be made for guys as diverse as Dylan, Jimi, and Zappa. Reasonable esoteric cases can be made for hundreds of other artists.
Maniac,
I would point out that there's quite a stylistic leap from Muddy Waters to Chuck Berry in your lineage. I might insert Louis Jordan in there and I suspect that Gatemouth Brown was also an influence on Berry. But your point is taken...it's a long and winding road to any of these artists.
However, the form has become so broad over the years that "greatest" labels have really become meaningless. What The Beatles were trying to do is only marginally related to what The Stones were trying to do, so - for me - a comparison is pointless. It will come down to semantics (What is really Rock n Roll?) and, as mentioned above, the purists probably come down on The Stones side of the fence while those with a broader definition might choose The Beatles, et al. Reasonable mainstream cases can also be made for guys as diverse as Dylan, Jimi, and Zappa. Reasonable esoteric cases can be made for hundreds of other artists.
Maniac,
I would point out that there's quite a stylistic leap from Muddy Waters to Chuck Berry in your lineage. I might insert Louis Jordan in there and I suspect that Gatemouth Brown was also an influence on Berry. But your point is taken...it's a long and winding road to any of these artists.