I also think that their (the Stones) songwriting was very hit and miss, obviously the hits more than did well, but there's an awful lot of filler on most of their LPs until the late 1960s, and a lot left in the can because it wasn't deemed good enough. Unlike the Hollies, who would consistently turn out 12 tracks of dynamite, with a drummer as exciting as Bobby Elliott, a lead guitarist in Tony Hicks who could easily play George Harrison under the table, and a front three-part vocal that somehow had more range than that of the Beatles.
I am in general agreement with Cameron's comments. The Hollies 1960's albums were always of a high standard but rather unfairly they did not receive the critical acclaim that they deserved. For example, when comparing the Hollies with the Stones, it seems ridiculous to me that the Stones "Between The Buttons" LP (both UK and USA versions) has received more critical acclaim over the years than the Hollies superior "For Certain Because" LP. Also, the Hollies released two exceptional albums in 1967, "Evolution" and "Butterfly", that IMHO provide a far better listening experience than the Stones "Their Satanic Majesties Request".