The Beatles vs The Rolling Stones: Sound Opinions on the Great Rock 'n' Roll Rivalry

by Jim DeRogatis, Greg Kot

Two of the world’s preeminent music journalists tackle the liveliest debate in rock which band is the greatest ever—the Beatles or the Rolling Stones? More than two dozen topics of debate are addressed, with cases being made both for the lads from Liverpool and rock’s proto bad boys. From the Cavern and Crawdaddy clubs through head-to-head comparisons of specific albums (e.g., Exile or “the White Album”?), members’ roles within the bands, the Svengali-like managers, influential producers, musical influences, and more, this is the book that dares confront the topics over which fans have agonized for years. Illustrated throughout with photography and memorabilia.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction

441 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2010

About the author

Jim DeRogatis is an associate professor of instruction at Columbia College Chicago and the host, with Greg Kot, of the nationally syndicated public radio show Sound Opinions. The author of Let it Blurt: The Life and Times of Lester Bangs and other books, he spent 15 years as the pop music critic at the Chicago Sun-Times. He lives in Chicago.

Reviews

[Dave Schwensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this book – seriously. It was fun and a quick read. Was it completely accurate? Not always (Ticket To Ride was 1965 – not ’64 guys!) but it doesn’t matter. It had a feel good attitude throughout and I found it easy to go with the flow.

I’m not familiar with the duo authors or their rock’n roll radio show. I used the links at the end of the book to visit their websites and it’s obvious they have a passion for music and know what they’re talking about.

To an extent…

My only real criticism about their comparison between the two greatest groups in the history of rock’n roll is that they’re looking at it all in hindsight. It’s not their fault – they were just born too late.

It would be like a baby-boomer talking about World War II based on watching The History Channel or reading books. Yes, that’s how you learn about these things, but a guy who actually lived through it would have a better perspective than those of us not even born at the time.

It’s the same with the authors’ perspectives on the 1960s. They can match member against member, record against record – but miss the emotions and feelings of the decade. You had to be there. The Beatles were not the clean-cut smiling Fabs at first. Their hair and music were shocking and threatening to the older generation. A Hard Day’s Night smoothed that image out a bit for parental approval. When The Rolling Stones came over months later, they had to use a full-blown PR assault to be considered “badder than The Beatles.” Those of us who were the first generation fans will remember that.

When the authors were just coming of age in rock’n roll (late 70′s) The Beatles had already broken up. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were the bad boys they saw on MTV and filling stadiums. But in the 1960s they were always a step behind The Fab Four. The LP Their Satanic Majesties Request, which is praised in this book was in reality a low rent Sgt. Pepper wannabe released almost six months after The Summer of Love.

Don’t get me wrong – I love The Stones!! But they really didn’t become The Stones until after The Beatles split.

Still, the authors gave us a very entertaining book. And even if you were born too late and wondering what all the fuss is about, this is a good place to start.

[Larry]

I think both of these guys are pretentious jerks, but I'm going to give this a chance anyway.

Update: Just as I expected, I got through the individual prefaces to this and decided I'd skim and look at the pictures. Great picture book ruined by a a couple of fantastic egos.

[Carol · Rating 4 out of 5]

I have come to appreciate the rock critic team of Greg Kot and Jim Derogatis as an awesome national resource. They also happen to be based in Chicago, which makes them local for me. Their show on NPR, Sound Opinions, offers a timely look at current music, but I prefer the shows where they evaluate how older music is standing the tests of time.

This book is structured as a conversation between the two critics as they put each group's musicians, influence, movies, and even associated women up against each other. Do not look for the main question in the title to be answered, as no self-respecting rock critic would make a pronouncement there.

I read this looking for some redemption for the Beatles. No matter how much contextualizing and appreciating I do, I just have little feeling for the supposed Fab Four. Yes, that's right: I don't like the Beatles. The only Beatles song on my Walkman is Siouxie and the Banshees' version of "Dear Prudence." So, along those lines, I hope Kot and Dero's next book is Pearl Jam vs Nirvana.

[James Clinton Slusher · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting enough take on an old debate. (Though, actually, when I was first getting turned on to the Beatles in sixth grade, the real conflict in all the music mags was between them and The Dave Clark Five! Isn't it interesting what happens over time?) Anyway, I'm always impressed by the body of knowledge these guys display about music, but somehow I rarely feel as if they're actually talking about the music. There are points in this book when I really think they're on target and appreciate the bands -- I especially liked the assessment of Charlie Watts and Ringo Starr as underrated drummers, something I've always felt about Ringo -- but very often, I got the sense that this was two very clinically oriented rock effetists trying to show who knows more arcane facts about the two bands. If you like music and enjoy reflecting on the relative importance of the Beatles and the Stones, I recommend the book; but I'm sure it could have been told equally effectively and more movingly in half the space.

[Beverly · Rating 4 out of 5]

What a great idea. Everyone who listens to these two great bands raises the issue of who is greater, the Beatles or the Stones. Jim and Greg give a balanced view which mainly reinforced my own opinion, but educated me a bit and gave me something to think about. I could have used more contention between the authors. My conclusion: the Beatles are great in their way, but are not rock n roll. Stones win!!!!!!

[Adam Parrilli · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’m still not convinced a versus matchup is suitable for pitting art against art, but I digress. I do understand it works for a book pitch. I will always be in The Beatles camp and oddly see this as analogous to my Cubs fandom. I feel like I was raised to be a Beatles fan (much like with the Cubs) and not a fan of the “outlaw” Rolling Stones. Truthfully I still don’t know the Stones catalog as well as I should. That Hot Rocks double CD was most of my Rolling Stones exposure for many years. In all honesty, I’m (like many) totally burned out on The Beatles. Anyway, the book here... It is definitely informational, photo heavy, and features a writing style meant to mimic Jim and Greg’s banter on Sound Opinions. I like that wrinkle and recommend this as light (albeit slightly dated) reading.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

My take is the Beatles were more consistent with higher highs. No band has been so creative in so few years. However, since the Stones have been around so long, they have many great songs and incredible hooks. It depends on mood which band I prefer at any one time.

[Jim Razinha · Rating 4 out of 5]

Keeping the authors in perspective is a given - they are not without know-it-all opinion - but this was still a fun survey. Head to head comparisons of genesis, albums, outrageousness, and musicians was a good approach. Akin to listening to an art critic talk about his/her favorite artist, the book is full of information for the casual listener...nuts about either group would probably already know most of it. Still, Starr and Watts as two of the most underrated drummers? McCartney as one of the best bassists of all time? Interesting to read the reasoning as to why those pronouncements.

Oh... as for me, the answer was a no-brainer. The Beatles did have some head-scratching duds, but the Stones only had a couple of good songs.

In my opinion.

[Randall Mell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding, the author engaged me right from the start with the anecdote about Paul McCartney upstaging Mick Jagger at Jagger's birthday party. It set the tone for the rest of the book. It was well written, an easy to read, with interesting insights into the relationships between the two bands. The writer tells us Tom Wolfe said: "The Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Rolling Stones wanted to burn your town down." While Wolfe captures the essence of the appeal of the two bands, the stories behind the shaping of those images were more complex.

[Len or Len · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it, but it would have been better if one of the rock critics had a stronger preference for one group over the other.

[JDK1962 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun, quick read.

[Al · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nine (4 +5) of the most influential musicians who ever walked on this planet. It's a draw.

[Ronnie Cramer · Rating 2 out of 5]

A discussion many people have had with their friends; this time it appears in print from 'two of the world’s preeminent music journalists' (it says here).