To you, perhaps, but not to me, and a plethora of others. I don't need to defend the Beatles. WHat started out as a Teeny bopper idol thing progressed into one of the most successful song writing affiliations in history.
I completely disagree. Playing ability, composing ability, musical composition, talent, vocals, harmony, just about anything you can list, the Beatles did better than the Stones, or the Who.
I like them all, but, there was far more talent, originality, and musical ability in the Beatles, than either of the other two groups.
Even in individual abilities.
Drumers: Ringo, and Watts were drummers. They were there when you needed them, with no "hey look at me" pretext. The Ringo was also a pretty decent Keyboardist.
Moon was a showman, granted, but, not much different than either of the other two, when it came of studio work.
Bassists: Mcca, the most melodic and versatile, and innovative. Not to mention his song writing capabilities, and various vocal styles.
John Entwistle: Excellent bass technician, and more classically trained than Mcca, a style of playing that suited the Who's lack of a strong lead guitarist. Forced into taking more responsibility for the band's power due to relatively weak guitar playing, As great a bassist has he was, it was always compromised of the need to over play to fill out the sound, especially live. He also played a pretty mean trumpet. ;)
Bill Wyman: The most traditional bassist of the three. Solid back beat,
Guitarist: George Harrison, the most melodic, and the most avant-garde of the three. Widest rage of stiles of the three.
Pete Townshend: The least talented and able of the three, and among the least talented of all the "Super Groups" of the time. What he lacked in ability, he tried to make up for with volume and showmanship. It worked for the masses, but most guitarist recognized his limitations.
Keith Richard: A good, blues and rock and roll guitarist, and a good "fill" man. Stepping outside of those parameters showed his limitations. When Brian Jones ( The Stones single best all around musician) died, it was a good idea to higher a GOOD rock guitarist. Mick Taylor was a good choice in 1969, Ron Wood was a better one in 1975.
Front Men: The Beatles had two, Lennon and McCartney, but excellent musicians and vocalists. Both could handle good rock and roll, numbers and ballads, Lennon had a better rock and blues voice, and McCartney a better pop voice.
The Stones had the ultimate Front man, in Mick Jagger, but while he had the classic Stones rock/blues voice. The stones lacked a good ballad vocalist. An excellent showman, and performer. Now in his 70's he's STILL an excellent performer. I suppose his years as a Phys. Ed Teacher lent themselves to his longevity.
The Who's Roger Daltrey. I never understood, why he didn't play more guitar on stage. He was, at least, as good as Townshed (probably better), and it would have added so much fill to their liver performances. Daltrey is a good frontman, but not the performer that Jagger is, and not the vocalist that either Lennon or McCartney were.
I saw the Beatles Live, twice. One at Shea Stadium in August of 1966, and once in August of 1965 in LA, at the Hollywood bowl.
A saw the Stones 4 times, in 1965 in Newark, NJ ( show was walking distance of my house. at the time). again the same year in again the same year in LA. Then again in NYC in 1972, and again in 1981 in Atlanta.
And the Who I saw 6 times: In NYC in 1974, and 76, and in Boston in 1976. In Brussels, Belgium in 1972, at Leeds in 1966, and in NYC back in 2004.
There wasn't a bad show in the lot. Though I could have done without the screaming girls at the Beatles, shows. ;)