Firstly, just be aware that, based on some of the now deleted responses, you've quite likely upset some big fans of bands like The Doors, The Byrds, Jefferson Airplane, The Beach Boys, Love, The Velvet Underground, The Sonics, The Mothers of Invention, CSNY, The Grateful Dead, Bob Dylan and the Band, Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band, Heart, The Allman Brothers Band who are surprised to discover that other bands are more talented and more commercially successful.

You get the picture. That is to say what you want to say, you first have to do is demonstrate that the bands you've listed - The Beatles, The Stones, Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath - are more talented, and have had more commercial success. Talent is to some extent in the eye of the beholder, and commercial success can be measured in various kinds of way - ticket sales? Record sales? On the single charts? On the album charts? Both? And do we mean commercial success in the USA, in particular, or worldwide, or in the UK? Which bands are we including in the list of ones that we're measuring commercial success for? On what grounds?

Also - what do we mean by 'rock bands'? Do The Supremes count? They got called 'a rock & roll band' at the time, after all, and they were enormously successful on the singles charts, having #1 single after #1 single. Because of course, the music that usually get counted as 'rock bands' is made by white people. Nonetheless, plenty of amazing 1960s pop music made by black people has some fairly similar elements to a lot of the rock music you've mentioned from the US - Aretha Franklin, The Temptations, Parliament Funkadelic, Otis Redding, Stevie Wonder, etc. But rarely does it get called 'rock' even though it's deeply and directly influential on a lot of the rock music you mention (e.g., Led Zeppelin are clearly influenced by Stevie Wonder on 'Trampled Underfoot', the Rolling Stones did versions of more than one Temptations song, Paul McCartney's basslines were obviously influenced by James Jamerson of Motown, etc). (I discuss issues around rock and soul in much more detail here).

But let's take a further step back to the UK and why there were rock bands in the UK in the first place (largely based on this previous answer).

There has, of course, been a continual stream of new pop acts that the British record companies have been trying to push to British fans since, basically, the days of music hall and the start of the British record industry. Each week, there are new acts that get onto the record sales charts, and they have done so since the first charts in the mid-1950s (when such charts started to be published in the UK).

So what we're talking about here is the process by which some of these acts, plucked out of this continual stream, eventually become seen as 'amazing' or 'massively popular and talented'. Usually, it means that other bands want to sound like them, and that people keep talking about them years later; their music doesn't keep floating past us in that continual stream of pop (as the majority of pop does), but manages to get stuck on the shore of pop culture in some way.

It should be pointed out that the Beatles first hit some popularity in the UK at the end of 1962 and at the end of 1963 in the US. And the reason it should be pointed out is that, previous to The Beatles, it was relatively unusual for British musicians to break into the American charts, but by the time we get to, e.g., Dark Side Of The Moon, close to a decade later, British musicians getting popular in the US were relatively run of the mill.

So what happened in the UK that all these amazing bands became popular? Well, nothing in particular, except that the Beatles were in the right place at the right time. The key here is the demographic explosion of the baby boomer generation, who wanted music that reflected their lives and their times. The enormous amount of (white) baby boomers who were born in the late 1940s and early 1950s were teenagers by the time that the Beatles broke into popularity; they were too young, in general, for the rock'n'roll of the 1950s, but they wanted music that reflected the electricity of the lives they were born into (in an era where electrical appliances were widely available to white suburban families for the first time) and they wanted music that had the same youthful vigour and which had something of the incipient sexuality that they felt as teenagers.

However, the record companies of the early 1960s were generally rather conservative and uninclined to put more energetic, raw sounding music out, with the more conservative record labels typically having wider reach and more power. The Beach Boys in 1962-1963 and the Beatles in late 1963 in America were the first relatively raw-sounding rock'n'roll bands to receive a dedicated promotional effort by a major record label like Capitol in some time (e.g., since 1958 or so, with Elvis going into the army, Chuck Berry being arrested, Little Richard giving up rock'n'roll, Buddy Holly passing away, etc). In 1964 in the US, The Beatles became such a phenomenon that American record labels promptly mined their British counterparts for material. These counterparts (including the Rolling Stones, The Kinks, etc) promptly also shot up the charts (partly because in the wake of the Beatles, their competitors as rock'n'roll bands in Liverpool and elsewhere in the UK were all very promptly signed up to record labels, and they had good product by the time there was interest in the US.

So there was a deep interest in British bands during what was a pivotal time in the formation of tastes amongst American baby boomers. It also took the American record industry a surprisingly long time to find and promote American bands that could compete with the British rock'n'roll bands; 'Mr Tambourine Man' by the Byrds, for example - one of the first bands on a major label that was obviously influenced by the success of the Beatles - was released in June 1965. This was because the American record industry were in part still hamstrung by the conservative music industry attitudes about how pop music should sound (which were now, clearly, outdated). As a result, a set of British bands from 1963-1965 - The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Kinks, The Animals, etc - were given a platform in America which they exploited artfully, before there was a resurgence of homegrown American product that was influenced by the Beatles and their huge success (The Byrds, Bob Dylan's rock stuff, The Monkees, The Byrds etc.).

The other issue here was the issue of race, of course; Elvis Presley in the 1950s had become a star by being a hillbilly who was singing black music; the Beatles in the 1950s in England were only dimly aware of the racial issues surrounding rock'n'roll in the 1950s, in an era where there was little rock'n'roll on music television (especially British television), and where 7" rock'n'roll records often came without a cover image. So The Beatles - who were of course, a few years older than their fans, being born during World War II rather than afterwards - were fans of 1950s rock'n'roll, and they were often unaware if the acts they liked were white or black; what appealed to them was energy. In being English and thus somewhat disconnected from issues of American segregation and stereotypes about African-America sexuality, the Beatles could get away with a level of energy and sexuality in their music which would not have been as welcome in pop culture from an African-American band, and which a white American band might have been more reticient about.

After The Beatles and the 'British Invasion' of 1964-1965, the British record industry also developed a new confidence and a new willingness to experiment (both with technology, drugs, styles, and sounds), which stood them in good stead as American baby boomers themselves developed a new confidence and a new willingness to experiment as they grew older. Additionally, the demographic explosion of the baby boomers also continued to think the music they liked as teenagers was important and influential. The baby boomers were the ones who wrote the history of rock music in music magazines and books, and who directed the documentaries about how important rock was. Unsurprisingly these baby boomers focused on 'their' music, and their own experiences of that music and why it was important. So the British bands they liked in 1964 and 1965 became a pivotal part of the story of rock, and the Beatles' continued influence got turned into something epochal (I talk about the influence on a certain demographic of baby boomers on perceptions of rock music in more detail here).