The Beatles started it. They can make any song that they wanted to. With Paul McCartney who already had a talent for memorable melodies it was possible. The Beatles songs just shows you how it was. The Beatles are just so much better and I don't know many people who appreciate how great they were and all the new bands just take it for credit
I love both, but the Beatles are so much more diverse and more revolutionary. At their very best the Beatles could jam harder than the Stones (Yer Blues). In addition, the Beatles delved deep into the topics dealing with the mind and made profound conclusions. The Stones were just." sex and sex and sex and sex".
I think both bands are talented, but the stones are better. The Rolling Stones sounded more like rock. I think bands like the doors, Boston, and Kansas were inspired more by the stones than the Beatles. Bands more popish like the moody blues or the cure were inspired by the Beatles. Also the Rolling Stones are still a band, and are still touring. Although both bands songs are mostly original, to me some of the Beatles songs don't quite sound original, and that they might have plagiarised a little or that riff or rythem. I'd have to go with the stones.
But I'd have to go with the Stones. I do believe that the Beatles were more musically diverse and creative. However, the Stones had something that the Beatles didn't: they were darker, sleazier, and heavier. The Beatles, to me, always sounded a little too clean, even though some of their songs could get pretty heavy as well. The Stones symbolized the primal rebellion and energy that every great rock and roll band has. There's a reason why Aerosmith and GNR patterned themselves after these guys. This attitude is missing in today's music. Everyone's trying to innovate like the Beatles did. Anyone can be heard on the Internet. As a result, nothing stands out. What music needs now is that one group with defiance and power that grabs you by your heart and hits you in the soul.