Beatles vs. Stones

The Stones only flaw was that they are not the Beatles. The Stones are great, and the Beatles are legend, never will there be a group of their ilk again.

If I had to choose I'd probably go with the Beatles, I think they had more memorable songs that can stand the test of time than the Stones (who have had their share as well, of course).

A story in this vein.  In the mid 60s, the Stones first hit with airplay in NYC was Tell Me You're Coming Back to Me.  One afternoon while I was listening to Dan Ingram, the late afternoon WABC DJ (who also had a jazz show on FM, as I recall), he made a comment on air after playing the Stones record to the effect that he felt the Stones were a poor imitation of the Beatles and he didn't like them.  Well, after another record and a few commercials, he came back on and said that the switchboard had lit up due to this comment, so he announced that he would run a contest, $10 to the best letter sent to him telling him why he should like the Stones and $10 to the best letter telling him why he shouldn't.  A few days later he announced that a couple of girls had written him a multi-page letter going on and on as to why he should love the Stones, so they won $10; the winning letter as to why he shouldn't like the Stones was simple--they were costing him $20.  

@jonwolfpell “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking” has never come even remotely close to getting old for me.  
This track, as you mentioned, turned up loud on a good system, might be as convincing as anything in terms of demonstrating the greatness of the Stones.

The Beatles plus George Martin.

Never did care much for the Ruttles, more of a Stones fan.

Besides, they’re different styles and of different roots. Not to mention the fab four barely made it a decade while the bad boys of rock and roll were still playing to stadiums full of arthritic fans after fifty years.

no comparison really.