Without a doubt, as far as I'm concerned, it's not even close!!!!
The Beatles are like Secretariat in the Belmont.... No contest!!!
It's a close battle for second between the Stones, Pink Floyd and Zeppelin.
excerpt from an article............50 years ago yesterday these 2 human beings met for the first time
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20070706/DAYBREAK/707060301
John Lennon met Paul McCartney 50 years ago today at the Woolton Village fete in Liverpool. In many ways, the essential bond of their musical partnership was formed that day. They were both friends and rivals. One provided check on the other. Paul could rein in John's acerbic wit, making his lyrics more palatable. John could add a rough edge to Paul's sentimentality. Once, Paul was working on a song about a conceited girl who treated her boyfriend cavalierly. He had her sing, "You can buy me golden rings." John vetoed the line. "It's not nasty enough," he said. "How about 'Baby, you can drive my car' ?" And that was it.
Salt and pepper. Lemon and lime. Lennon and McCartney. Different, but they worked well together. Think of the world if they'd never met, or if John hadn't co-opted Paul.
President Kennedy would still have been assassinated, but we wouldn't have had the Beatles to help mend our broken hearts. The Vietnam War would have still been fought, but the anti-war movement would have lost its soundtrack ("All You Need is Love"). The economy of Great Britain would have suffered, but instead All Things British became touchstones of cultural cool. (Many English artists had tried and failed to crack the American market before the Beatles came along.)
The musical influence of the Beatles magnified that of Elvis Presley. As boys, John, Paul, George Harrison and Ringo Starr were moved to make music because of Elvis. A decade later, they had the same effect on another generation. Without hearing the Beatles, Bob Dylan might have labored in obscurity as an acoustic artist. Thousands of rock bands, good and bad, would never have been formed and garages would have been used for automobiles, not amplifiers. The Rolling Stones might have stayed an amateur basement-level blues band, never turning toward rock'n'roll. (It would have been merely a hobby for Keith Richards, who would have pursued his original career choice as an accountant.)
The what-if game, for all of its amusements, is pointless. Still, it's interesting to imagine what would have happened if John and Paul didn't meet. It's virtually impossible to conceive of the 1960s without the Beatles, whose effect went far beyond music. Fashion, film, the explosion of pop art, the new definition of "celebrity" - all of it was affected by the Beatles.
Mostly I think about falling in love. For four decades, the Beatles have provided the vocabulary of romance and a couple dozen of the most exquisite love songs since the days of Cole Porter, George and Ira Gershwin and Rodgers and Hammerstein. Although rarely political in the classic sense, the Beatles were nonetheless soldiers in the war against emotional fascism, always speaking of love:
Close your eyes and I'll kiss you, tomorrow I'll miss you . . .
If I fell in love with you, would you promise to be true?
Something in the way she moves attracts me like no other lover . . .
So perhaps July 6 ought to be an international holiday. Without the Beatles, the world would have continued to spin on its axis, but with much less joy. That meeting in the church hall gave us a wonderful era of music, hundreds of beautiful songs, and one of the greatest creative partnerships of the 20th Century.
Fifty years later, John and George are dead, Paul nurses his battered heart and Ringo remains Ringo. Don't think about that ending; think about that beginning. Take a sad song and make it better. Think about what we would have missed.
Don't know why you say goodbye, I say hello .