Hey man, whatcha' reading? #2

Hey man, whatcha’ reading? Well, the most recent music related book was “JohnMcMillan Presents Beatles vs. Stones.”

Which is as you would guess is a look into the “rivalry” of the Beatles and the Stones. This has always been one of those false dichotomy /artificial construct questions that is supposed to mean something, Beatles or Stones? Flintstones or Jetsons? Ginger or Mary Ann? Star Trek or Star Wars? but which mean nothing. Sort of like all of those stupid quizzes on facewastebook…What cocktail are you… which punk icon are you… what house should you live in…what FRIENDS character are you… what Disney Princess are you? gimmie a break!!! As I was saying the book details the supposed rivalry of the two groups, how the Beatles were all cutesy and the Stones were all tough. Which, as the author points out, was the image developed by the managers, Brian Epstein and Andrew Loog Oldham, and that actually, the Beatles all grew up as working class troublemakers, and the Stones were very much middle class good boys, or as the author puts it, “Gentlemen or Thugs?” If you look at the early pictures of the Beatles, or know of the stories of their time in Hamburg, this is readily apparent.

When the Stones formed, Oldham originally wanted them to dress up and look nice, 

but then realized that by making the Stones look dirty and tough (much like the way the Beatles looked in Hamburg), and by playing up the rivalry, they would stand out. The image that the groups developed was based on how to gain popularity. Without the Beatles paving the way for “pop” groups, the Stones would never have developed their image as the antithesis of the Beatles.

Now let’s talk about the “rivalry.” By the time the Stones came out, the Beatles had already “made it”. The Beatles already had hit records and were in no way threatened by the success of other bands, as seen in the book when the Beatles are asked about the Dave Clark Five. Also, there was a connection between the bands’ managers. Oldham had briefly worked for Epstein and actually used this fact to further his career and that of the Stones. Besides that, the Beatles gave “I Wanna be your Man”

 to the Stones to record, and later sang backing vocals on the Stones song “We Love You.”

Not to mention that Mick was at the broadcast of “All you Need is Love,”  (see Mick at 2:37)

 or that John Lennon and Keith Richards performed together on the Rolling Stones “Rock and Roll Circus” as The Dirty Mac (along with Eric Clapton and Mitch Mitchell).

 Members of the Beatles and the Stones often said that there was no rivalry and that they were friends, but they did have an “artistic rivalry.” John Lennon stated several times, that anything the Beatles did, the Stones did two months later. But you have to remember, that anything the Beatles did, every group did several months later. The Beatles were very much trendsetters in that time and space.

To sum it up, it’s a good quick read on both the Beatles and the Stones. If you’ve read anything on either group, including Keith Richards’ book, “Life,” or any of the numerous books about the Beatles, you’ve probably come across most of these stories, but it’s good to have them all in one place.

As for Beatles or Stones, I have to say that I am on the Beatles side, mostly because they paved the way for later bands, and also because of their creativity and the strength of their material. But that’s not entirely true. Although I prefer the Beatles over the 1960’s era Stones, The 1970s were when the Stones really hit their stride, and much of the material from “Beggars Banquet” through Goats Head Soup is top-notch. Maybe this is because they no longer had to follow what the Beatles were doing, or because they grew into their image and songwriting, or when you think about it, the Beatles were together from 1957 (approx.) until they hit it big in 1962—that’s six years. The Stones formed in 1962 (approx.) and didn’t hit their stride until 1968…that’s six years…hmmm.

But as I said, this whole Beatles/Stones is a false dichotomy. What about all of the other groups? The Who? The Kinks? The Small Faces? The Yardbirds? The Animals? And so on…If you ask my friend Paul this Beatles or Stones question, he’d say “The Who.” He has said that pound for pound, The Who are the Best Rock Group (or something like that…if you read this Paul, post it in the comments)

But of course there are people who don’t like either band, and then there’s this little dig from David Bowie as performed by Mott the Hoople:

“And my brother's back at home with his Beatles and his Stones
We never got it off on that revolution stuff
What a drag too many snags”

So who do you choose?

(Disclaimer - I do not own the right to any photos or videos posted here)