A rocker’s guide to management
> One of the most striking differences between the Stones and the Beatles is that the Beatles split up after a mere seven years at the top, whereas the Stones are still going. One startup flashed brightly and burned out; the other established itself as a long-running corporation.<p>When it comes to fame the Beatles' model is the clear winner. 
In 56 years the Rolling Stones performed more than two thousand concerts around the world[1]. They did so many concert tours that there exits a Wikipedia category[2] just for the tours.
Sure, the Rolling Stones are world famous, but what effort was required to become and stay that way. Compare that with the Beatles. They put in ten years of work to reach universal long lasting popularity - how efficient is that.<p>When it comes to fortune I'm not so sure.  Comparing net worth of McCartney ($1.2 billion [3]) and Mick Jagger ($360 million [4]) it looks pretty clear too. But when we compare the overall wealth generated by the Beatles vs that of the Rolling Stones I'm not sure if that would be as clear cut.  I don't have any number though and I think it's difficult to compare.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rolling_Stones_concerts</a><p>[2] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_concert_tours" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:The_Rolling_Stones_co...</a><p>[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_McCartney</a><p>[4] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mick_Jagger</a>