Neither, both overrated, especially the (not so Fab Four)
The Stones are like a poor mans Primal scream. Mine, The Kinks and The Who, pick the bones out of that.

Good idea ,can not say I liked a lot of the Fab four or the R Stones . Thought the Fab four made some good records in there later years .I was in to Motown and soul music in the 60 tis.Still gets people up dancing today.

The Stones were just a blues tribute act. Some good stuff and I'm a fan but they just rehashed stuff from the delta and put an English spin on it.

The Who were great, and a perfect example of the sum of four parts making a great whole, because each component was great in their own right. Take Keith Moon out, or Roger Daltrey out, and they just aren't The Who or any semblance of The Who.

For me, however, it was The Beatles. Groundbreaking too many times and their best stuff still sound great today. I just don't go with Lennon as the genius though. I think the real creative one was Paul McCartney. Lennon gets the nod by most because he had an edgier look and mood, and was murdered (death always helps for immortality, which is probably the biggest irony of all), but the real creative force was McCartney.

That's true to a point, though I struggle to see the similarity between Delta blues and Gimmie Shelter, Sympathy for the Devil, Ruby Tuesday or dare I say the best Disco record ever made, Miss you. The Stones are far more diverse than they are ever given credit for, partly their fault for not dying or packing it in or worse still playing to a caricature of themselves to become incredibly rich.

The same applies to the Beatles who were basically a souped-up Everly Brothers. They were in my opinion no more creative than many other sixties bands, Stones included, they just happened to enter the public imagination first.

Where I do agree is McCartney. Without a doubt no pop musician has had a better ear for melody than him, it's this IMHO that made them so popular with all generations, not just the kids. Lennon huffed and puffed but frankly I don't get him.

When I was 17 I obviously liked bands of my own era but the Beatles were my favourite band, barely listened to the Stones. My college lecturer told me that if I stuck with them I'd change as I got older and I did. The Beatles have the tunes but the Stones have grove and Rock n Roll has always been about the groove imho. He also said that the Stones was music for adults only,I think I now know what he meant.

Not that bothered about either but if I had to choose it would be the Stones.
Some of the McCartney written Beatles stuff was tripe.

Always preferred The Who in front of Beatles/Stones but the only groups I really stuck with from their inception and purchased all their stuff was The Kinks and Hawkwind.

I can fall out with myself over my own opinions, I hate the Beatles music, never got it, but they definitely did change the face/course of music. The Stones, I was always a bit meh with them then saw them at Glastonbury (2012 ish) first hour I was like “yeah I’m right, shi8e” then the second half they did a best of set and it was majestic.
Ps. Plus I like Wings.

With the 60's for me it's a bit of a shift for me ( well as wide as the Atlantic)
Creedance Clearwater Survival & Steppenwolf.

The Beatles and the mamas and papas

Revival?

Personally thought the coolest were the mighty Led Zeppelin who had they own plane and Rob Plant changed the look of the rock stars with is long blonde wavy hair and tight jeans if you are into that BUT most importantly they were the best in my opinion.

Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin for me along with Black Sabbath of that period. Special mention to The Wall album

I’m far too young to understand what any of the posts on this topic mean.