Happy 80th Birthday Ringo Starr. He gets a lot of shit for being the "Least Important Beatle" but I don't think they would have been the same band with another drummer. And I honestly think his style works really well with the band (See "A Day in the Life". And the least important Beatle is still pretty fucking great! I'm enough of a Ringo fan that I even like some solo stuff. And he's the only Beatle to play in Maine!
See a lot of the descriptions/criticisms I hear of Ringo's drumming (solid, nondescript workmanlike), I would use for Charlie Watts. Ringo, whether you like his style of playing or not, certainly has a unique way of playing the drums. I love love love The Stones and get closer each passing year to siding with them in the Beatles Vs Stones argument but there's not a Stones song where Charlie's drumming really impresses me.
It gets too different for me to take sides in a Stones vs Beatles debate. Easiest answer I remember hearing was the Beatles were a better pop band and the Stones were a better rock band, but even then I have trouble. Beatles wanted to hold hands, Stones wanted to fuck, the Who wanted to talk shit, and the Kinks just made fun of everyone from the corner of the room.
But Beatles had too many great rockers and Stones had too many great pop songs to put them in those respective pigeon holes. Also as Lemmy described, The Beatles were legitimately tougher than The Stones (who were kind of poseurs).
Anytime one of my Music academic friends tries to corner me on "Column a" or "column b" and I can't give a satisfactory answer firm, I just assume my middle ground speaks to my ignorance. I like everyone @The Valeyard listed. I was never either/or with the Stones and Beatles. Why do we have to pick? The Beatles were fantastic, and still are. Hell even Elvis covered some of their stuff in his later career and I have the biggest music man crush on Elvis this side of the Mississippi. And The Stones were amazing to listen to in all eras. Music should unite, not divide, ideally.
I would say The Beatles made the least amount of garbage of any band ever but that's easy when you only essentially last seven years. Even a lot of "bad" Beatles songs are still good compared to most music.
(That last sentence might've been the most boomer-y thing I have ever written)
Stones had more garbage by far, just because of longevity. I think, if you want to have that debate, it'd be deep cuts vs deep cuts from probably 1964 to 1970. Stones had better overall records to me because they paced everything really well and there's a lot less slow spots. Beatles low moments stick out hard compared to the good ones, but with amazing production. You can kind of see it when the White Album just runs out of steam by the end.
It's been a few years but I will say Their Satan Majesties Request was at least as good if not better than Sgt. Pepper.
Today would've been John Lennon's 80th birthday. If that ponce Mark David Chapman hadn't shot him, there's a fairly decent chance he'd still be alive today releasing music (that only me and @The Valeyard and a few other Beatles nerds care about and even that is a reach).
One thing that's always intrigued me is whether The Beatles would've been as good if they had come along at a later time when songs started being pushed longer in length? I always got the vibe with a lot of the 1950s/1960s acts that their release production was so much precisely due to the great majority of their songs being between 2:00 and 3:00 in length. From a songwriting (and performance) perspective, it would seem that a shorter song means less overall time necessarily be given to performance/editing/etc. in comparison to say a 4:00 or 5:00 song.
A table in the above article shows The Beatles released 7 Albums in basically 4 years (97 Songs). As the songs started getting longer, they then released just an album a year with it being 3 Albums in 3 Years (60 songs ignoring Yellow Submarine).
Day that changed everything for rock music. If this hadn't happened, Gene Simmons would be a furniture salesman and Billy Joel would get a drunken retired US history teacher (as opposed to a drunken retired Piano Man).
I would have agreed that this feat is unmatchable 10 years ago but the way Billboard chart algorithims are these days with downloads and crap, I'm not sure if I still feel the same way. Drake's last few albums had like all 20 tracks show up in the Hot 100.
I will sure get spitting feathers mad though if and when some Gen Zer tries to claim Aubrey is better than Lennon/McCartney.