Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones Although Both

¶ … Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

Although both were seminal musical bands during the 1960's, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones formed, and continue to mark distinct cultural styles and trends in the history of 1960's and 1970's music. The Beatles have the advantage over the Rolling Stones, in some sense, in securing their place in musical history because they no longer are a band and had a far briefer history. Two of the Beatles founding fathers are dead, one by assassination, the other because of cancer. Thus, the Beatles status and place in musical history remains enshrined, unlike that of the Rolling Stones, which is still, to some extent, evolving in its image, yet remaining musically static all at once.

The Beatles are still largely viewed as the 'nicer' or the more cerebral of the two bands. Even though the Beatles like the Rolling Stones, came from a grungy, pseudo-American style during the early days of Brit Pop, the Beatles adopted a less rebellious image from their onset. The Beatles, after leaving the early black-suited days of "I Wanna Hold your Hand," eventually created a musical aesthetic that was not nice and conventional, nor purely teenage or rebellious in style, but incorporated other aspects of dominant intellectual movements of the time, such as the interest in Eastern mysticism and the pacifist movement. These interests affected the group's musical sound, undoubtedly, and sense of musical aesthetics. As early as the strains of "Hey Jude," one can hear an Indian guitar playing along side of elements of the Eastern tonal scale. "Revolution" by John Lennon incorporates a contradictory attitude and disdains as well as embraces the simple, anti-establishment, anti-everything attitude that was common during the late 1960's. A more loving and holistic form of pacificism was to emerge in Lennon's independent works as a musician, as well as Paul McCartney's later band Wings.

The Rolling Stones, in contrast, were all about rebellion and little of the mind -- and everything having to do with rock n' roll in performance, that is the 'body' of rock. Although equally prolific, if not more so, than the Beatles, in terms of the rate the Stones generated albums, they were far less musically innovative, preferring to rely upon the sexually propulsive themes and rhythms of rock music for their appeal. They had a dirty, gritty image as a band in leather jackets, and were subject to allegations, frequently, of sexual and drug use that had little to do with consciousness raising and everything to do with seeming bad and rebellious. They exploited youth culture as well as exhibited its excesses and self-analysis like the Beatles. Their main evolution was from an anti-establishment band to a band that became full of celebrities because of their anti-establishment qualities.

In fact, today the Rolling Stones are almost patron saints of the cult of celebrity. Almost as famous as the group's actual musical works are the down-and-dirty dealings of Mick Jagger and his trysts with Marianne Faithful, for example, and his later marriage to super model Jerry Hall. Rather than attempting to create an image, a sound, and an ideal like the Beatles, and then leaving and dissolving the group after all of these things were no longer possible to bring together, the Rolling Stones have continued to exploit their appeal, going on tour, acting like young men far beneath their actual ages, much to the delight of baby boomers whom were once their most ardent fans and continue, along with younger people, to make up their audiences around the world.