FaceOff:
The Beatles vs. the Rolling Stones
Welcome to FaceOff, where I will be taking two similar or
equally influential pop culture figures, and compare them. Please note that
this is not a typical ‘who’s better’ blog, as that is just a pointless exercise
in brain power and is ultimately a futile experience. Not to mention that I
will be attacked by rabid fans no matter which way I turn, so I’d rather not
bring that pressure on myself
…
Moving on.
So, as I said ,this is not your typical comparison. Instead,
what I will be comparing is how two bands who started at the same time, but had
fundamentally different approaches in their music, grew to where they are
today.
Origins
I’d rather not go into details, as both these bands’ origin
stories have been repeated so often that there’s no point in me repeating a
tired tale. Here’s how it goes.
Liverpool. Skiffle. Mommy issues. Aunty issues. Hamburg.
Death. Drums Issues. Hamburg. Record Deal. (Almost) Instant Stardom.
The Beatles: John, Paul, George and um...sorry, can't place the last one
And on the other end, London. Blues Incorporated. Phone
Calls. Unfiled Muddy Waters LPs. Embarrassed Decca. Various changes. England’s
Newest Hit-Makers.
A rolling stone gathers no moss.Wrinkles, on the other hand..
Image
In contrast to the Beatles’ clean-cut image, the Stones
presented themselves as the wild boys of rock n’ roll. This was done deliberately,
in order to appeal to that section of society that found the Beatles “too
poppy” (Yes, even in the 60s, when things were just getting started, pop music
was derided. Go figure). However, both these images were manufactured. The
Beatles’ image was manufactured by their manager, Brian Epstein, in order to
replace their previous, raucous, wild stage personas. Indeed, if one were to
look at their origins, the Beatles (working class Liverpudlians) might be
considered even more rowdy than the Stones (middle class Londoners). The Stones
were manufactured by their manager, Andrew Oldham. A former publicist for the
Beatles, Oldham saw potential in the group being positioned as an
"anti-Beatles" - a rougher group compared to the "cuddly
moptop" image of the Beatles at that time.
This, by the way, proves that selling out doesn’t necessarily mean
losing artistic credibility and/or talent (You’re welcome, punk rock bands).
Oh, they were manufactured too. Sorry, punk rock fans.
Sound
Both groups have a varied and diverse soundscape, but I’ve
always found the Beatles to be the more innovative of the two. In fact, the
Stones were seen as a throwback to the R&B and blues bands of old. Also,
I’ve always found that the Stones seemed to ape whatever trend was in fashion
at the moment, be it psychedilia (Their Satanic Majesties Request) or glam rock
(It’s Only Rock n’ Roll), while the Beatles were constantly paving new ground.
I’m sure I’ll get some criticism for that view point, but it is what it is.
Sure, the Stones rocked harder, but at the end of the day, it was the Beatles that
made rock n’ roll what it is today.
A masterpiece in psychedilia...
Sure, it doesn't break any new ground, but who said that's a requirement for good music?
Live Performances
No contest here. The Beatles were a fine live band in their
own right, but they didn’t hold a candle to the Stones. In fact, I’d go as far
as to say that what the Rolling Stones did for live performances was as ground
breaking as what the Beatles did for studio innovation. Some may cite the fact
that the Beatles stopped touring in the mid-60s as a reason for this setback,
but I don’t think they’d ever be able to match the Stones. The Stones were raw, and showed us the wild side of rock
music. (Of course, neither of the groups holds a candle to the Who in this
category, but that’s a topic for another post).
Have some sympathy for the Beatles...or don't, seeing as they could buy your sympathy and then make it do the waltz with your dignity, and then they all laugh at your overly long captions...
Conclusion
So there you have it. Not a very thorough list, but I just
wanted to highlight what I felt were the two groups’ biggest strengths. While
the Beatles represented the creative and genius of rock n’ roll and pop music
in general, the Stones showed us its wild and beautiful side.
