Two words: Taylor Swift.

Two more words: Gwen Stefani

For as much awful shit as the solo Beatles catalog possesses, I don't find the same abysmal lows in the Beatles years.  Having said that, the Stones sample size is large and for anything that's been around 50 years, there are bound to be cracks in the armor (talking to you Jagger with your falsetto-vocal songs).

In this modern era, I'm more into seeing McCartney live because I know he's going to TRY (sorry Keith) and not bring out really shitty guests.  Plus, he plays for nearly 3 hours.  I know these recent Stones shows are clocking in with good time, but still.  I passed on the Stones in 2007.  I will never pass on a McCartney show. 

I love both bands for what they are: damn fine music.  They both are at the top of my list.

Stones are better, no question.

Were the Stones as revolutionary as the Beatles? No,

Stones were much more 'revolutionary', in every aspect.