blastingas10

Hmm... The Beatles average and the stones aren't? I'm not saying either one is average but if one of them is it's the stones. Sure, they Beatles first albums weren't all that great, I'll give you that, but they got there. The stones were just playing blues Rock, they were good at it, but it's still blues rock, something that was already being done. They really weren't very innovative in any way. They had a folk side with songs like "Angie", which is a great song, but still, nothing out of the ordinary.

On the other hand, the Beatles started coming out with these great, innovative albums. It all started with rubber soul when george busted out the sitar, something that had never been done in Rock or pop. And that inspired the beach boys the come out with pet sounds, as it's been said (I know plenty of you will refute that claim), and then after pet sounds came sgt peppers which really brought rock n roll to this new peek of creativity and originality. One of the most innovative am influential albums ever, something that can't be said about anything the stones did.

So you have one band, the beatles, who were innovating and inspiring and progressing rock like no one had done before. And then you have the stones, who were playing some good blues rock, had a flamboyant singer that the chicks loved, and that's about it. They were good at what they did but what they did was nothing out of the ordinary. They weren't innovators like chuck berry, someone who really kicked off the blues rock genre, they didn't take it to another level like Hendrix did, they just played good blues rock with an acoustic, folky side as well. Once again, great band, but nothing compared to the Beatles.