Okay, we're in the same bracket.
Sorry, your boys were pop; the Stones were and always have been rock n roll, plus R&B.
I don't know exactly what you mean by "pop", but it sounds like your dementia is worse than mine. Sure, for about a year or two (1964-65) the Beatles were the first "boy band" after Brian Epstein cleaned them up for public display, but other than that? You don't know what you missed.
The Beatles cut their teeth covering Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, Johnny Burnette, Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, etc. The Beatles were also a brawling gang who routinely found themselves spilling blood in bars and on the street. (The Beatles' original bass player, Stu Sutcliffe, died apparently from the effects of a kick to the head.) Lennon once took the stage naked, with a toilet seat from the bathroom wrapped around his neck. I once read an interview with Jagger where he said he and the Stones were in a bar with the Beatles and he admitted to being intimidated - - he said you never knew when the fists were going to start flying.
Anyway, like I said, I'm not sure what your definition of "pop" is, but I am pretty sure 'I Am The Walrus', 'Polythene Pam', 'A Day In The Life', 'Tomorrow Never Knows', 'She Said She Said', 'Strawberry Fields', and 'Revolution', etc., etc., don't qualify.
Look, I love the Stones. I even bought 'Sticky Fingers' on a trip to London in April 1971 and brought it back to the US a week before the LP was released here. I was the star of the neighborhood for a week! By the way I STILL have my 45 collection, and yeah, it's loaded with Beatles and Stones records. And I STILL have 'Their Satanic Majesty's Request' with that old-fashioned 3-D cover, and I STILL have the monoraul Sgt. Pepper's album I traded a Frank Zappa LP for.
So, although I have always been a big fan of both the Beatles and the Stones, I have to laugh at any comparison. The Stones were the reliable workmen who produced a whole lot of truly great stuff; the Beatles were the incomparable geniuses who produced a whole lot of masterpieces.
My opinion, of course.
Also remember, the Stones’ first hit was a cover of The Beatles’ “I Wanna Be Your Man.”
Actually, the Beatles songs you listed would be considered popular music and not true rock n roll, as western music has subdivided since the 40's. BTW, the Stones also did their thing with the early blues and R&B artists. Muddy Waters even complimented them for their covers.
I didn't miss anything...I was in my teens during the British invasion. I heard and saw the Beatles, but when the Stones came months later, I saw a raw garage band with the soul to last. Like I said to an earlier poster, it's probably unfair to compare the two since the Stones continued producing after the Beatles broke up.
We all wonder what the Beatles could have done if not disbanded. Personally, between Lennon's self-absorbed peace thing with Ono, and McCartney's big ego, I doubt they could have written the rock classics on your "Sticky Fingers" and following recordings that have so many classic rock songs.
Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about who is the better rock band. This debate will go on long after we're gone. Still, isn't it great that we grew up in the heyday of Rock and Roll and R&B. Thanks for the conversation because, "It's Only Rock n Roll, But I Like It".