At this point it is already public knowledge the rivalry between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones is something that existed, and still there is among the fans of both groups, though such rivalry was not among the protagonists of this story. Even nowadays the eternal question is still heard, if one is more partisan of a group or the other, and the choice seems to define the philosophy of life of the questioned beyond its musical taste.
John McMillian, profesor of history at Georgia University, has been dedicated to scrutinizing this issue and the result has been “The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones” (Uranus Editions), with the addition of “ the greatest rivalry in the history of rock”. The author tries to ascertain whether or not this hostility really existed, and the conclusión more or less is “there was some of that.”
His theory is that, indeed, there was a tune between Paul, John, George and Ringo and their fellow professionals, Mick, Keith, Bill, Brian and Charlie. In fact, the Liverpools helped on several occasions to the second: Lennon and McCartney, gave them the song “I Wanna Be Your Man” at a time when they were stuck, and George Harrison advised Dick Rowe, from the Label Record Decca, a man eternally designated for having rejected The Beattles in a audition to sign the stones. Yeti t is known that both bands agreed not to coincide in their record launches.
A Media Rivalry
However the media did encourage those posible quarrels because it is alreadyknown that these kinds of stories make sales go up. The constant questions from journalists were solved once the musicians declared themselves admirers of each others work. In any case, McMillian puts into evidence some punctual moments in which there were certain differences.
On the other Hand, The Beatles represented the invasion to the rough north, while the Stones where the great hope for the modern London. Likewise, Jagger and Company were a paradigm of rebellious auntheticity, dirty sound and mischevous attitude, while the Fab Four were seen as a product for Teenagers, at least in the beggining. Something that by the way kicked Lennon, as he knew his stage in Hamburg had been quite a bit more punk.
The Stones at Rejest
It also shows that the Stones, who found succcess almost inmediately in front of the hard work developed by the Beatles, always went to rejest from the sound discoveries of their opponents. Only at the end of the 60s his satanic majesties seemed to take the lead with two escellent tunes, “Beggar Banquet” and “Let it Bleed” also putting itself in front of the youth anti-establishment with “Street Fighting Man” – On Top of that Lennon showing rejection against it with his song “Revolution”- What leaves the doubt of what would’ve happened in the early 70s when the londoners followed the streak with two other masterpieces, “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main St.».Would they have finally become in the largest british band and therefore the world?
It Its arround this time when the most bitter statements between the rival musicians begin. Something which has its máximum expression is when Lennon outs shortly before he died in an interview for “Playboy” against the Stones stating that “In the 80s people will wonder : “why are these guys still together? Can’t they stand out for themselves?”, just to continue referring to Mick “They will show us pictures od the guy with lipstick and waggin his ass while the other four guys with badass black make-up trying to look obscene” They’re going to be the joke of the future… its ok when you’re 16, 17 or 18, about having male buddies and idols, okay? But if you don’t stop and keep doing it until your 40, then that means that mentally you are still 16”.
Already in the mid Seventies there had been a crossroads of reproaches, also by an excited Lennon, who deserved the answer of Richards: "It is probable that John Lennon has already spent his moment of glory." Unless I do something soon. I don't think anyone's going to pay much attention to what John says or does. Because musically he hasn't done anything to get close to what he did six or seven years ago, what he was doing with the Beatles. "None of them have done so."
In any case, McMillian’s book serves to confront the resspective phenomena that both groups starred, with a great number of details and anecdotes that although they are known, McMillian strives to clarify, to purify the reality from fiction or better said, legend.
what are your thoughts on this? personally I love both, though I've always thought that each band has their own time and ocassion in ones life, however I stick more with The Beatles since I grew up listening to them and later on through my teenage years I developed and interest for The Stones and their rebellious attitude, so getting to the point, tell us what band do you like most, and why? and if you are like me that likes both then tell us what are your favorite songs! and remember if you enjoyed this post comment, upvote and resteem for more great stuff!