Another Beatles vs. Stones comparison is "innovativeness." "Sgt. Pepper," obviously the most impactful and highly praised album of the Sixties. But, it's not "the the Greatest Album of All Time," nor is it even their best (that title belongs, IMO, to "Rubber Soul," with "Revolver" and "Help" very close behind). Nor is "Pepper" a pioneering "concept" album--only the first second and next to last songs on the album support a "concept." "Magical Mystery Tour" is more of a "concept" album, and has some really innovative music ("I Am the Walrus," "Strawberry Fields Forever," and "Penny Lane" are in a league with "Pepper's" immortal "With a Little Help from My Friends" and "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"). "Pepper"introduced sitar, but it was a lame Harrison indulgence; the Stones used sitar earlier and better on "Paint it Black." But, no Beatles album is devoid of one or more great, memorable songs, and most have a higher percentage of quality music than nearly all other bands' albums.

Stones' one attempt at a "concept" album--"Their Satanic Majesties Request," had a few interesting songs, but was largely a flop. But, give them credit for having the dood sense and focus to stick with what they do best--blues--and to continually improve on it.Beatles excelled in songwriting and production, Stones excelled in performance--"Get Your Ya-Yas Out" and "Love You Live" are untoppable live albums.

For this ancient fan's money, The Who, though they can't match either Beatles' or Stones' total output, were the most consistently hard-rocking yet innovative band in history. "Tommy" and especially the vastly underrated "Quadrophenia" are genuine, fully realized rock operas; the overtures for both are worthy of Rossini's overtures. They were also capable of producing a great pop album ("Who's Next") and simultaneously a great live album ("LIve at Leeds").