Los Beatles versus los Rolling Stones: La rivalidad más grande en la historia del rock

by John McMillian

With the sophistication of a historian, the storytelling skills of a journalist, and the passion of a fan, John McMillian explores the multifaceted relationship between the two greatest bands of our time.

Genres: Music, Nonfiction, History, Biography, Pop Culture, Rock N Roll, Biography Memoir

286 pages, Paperback

First published October 29, 2013

About the author

Hi! I'm an associate professor of history at Georgia State University, in Atlanta. Previously, I've taught in the Committee on Degrees in History and Literature at Harvard, and I earned my Ph.D. from Columbia. I've recently begun a new project, "Welcome to Fear City," on crime, policing, and police corruption from the early 1960s until 2001.

Reviews

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Whatever passing allegiance for this or that newly fashionable group, being a pop fan in 1964 Britain depended on one fundamental question: 'Are you Beatles or are you Stones?,' asked with the searching ferocity of rival factions in a football crowd." -- Philip Norman, author / journalist

When these groups first came to prominence, they were often compared to (or pitted against) each other in music journalism or by fans. It was really sort of 'apples and oranges.' The Beatles were influenced by early rockers such as Elvis, Chuck Berry, and Buddy Holly. The Stones drew their inspiration from bluesmen Howlin' Wolf, Muddy Waters, and Robert Johnson. However, both acts succeeded in becoming more popular and legendary than anyone involved could have ever imagined.

The title of McMillian's work is a bit of hyperbole - without it being a 'spoiler,' fans pretty much already know that the two groups were able to more-or-less comfortably co-exist as friendly rivals during 1963-1971 (the years covered in the text). Occasionally some cutting barbs were thrown out by Lennon or Richards during interviews throughout the years, but more often said groups seemed to operate with a certain level of respect - they appeared to appreciate each other's musical output, and usually tried to avoid outright competition with their release schedules of singles and albums.

Also, he refreshingly does not 'take sides' - McMillian is not purposefully attempting to say one group is better than the other. He sort of theorized that the Beatles have the edge, if only because they had seven compact years, leaving the fans with good memories and lots of great music. On the other hand, you have the Stones still soldiering on after 50+ (!) years in the biz with their advancing age, increasing ticket prices, and some mediocre tunes amidst occasional flashes of rock brilliance. In the end, I agree with McMillian's notion that the Stones' vaunted 1968-1972 era can reasonably compare with the bulk of the Beatles catalogue as a sort of stalemate or tie between the two acts.

This book would appeal to fans of either group (I happen to like them both equally - it is possible!) - it is very well-researched and presents a fair amount of detailed information in a deft 230 pages.

[Susan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book looks at how, in the Sixties, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were pitted against each other as rivals by the press, fans and, despite claims by both sides that they were not in competition, sometimes by the bands themselves. In the early Sixties, the Rolling Stones were portrayed as the Beatles polar opposites - the Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Rolling Stones wanted to burn down your town, went the old quote. The Rolling Stones were rebels, the Beatles lovable mop tops; the Rolling Stones aggressive louts that no respectable father would want his daughter to date, the Beatles beloved by parents as well as their children. Yet, how true were these press and publicity exaggerations and what did they mean to the bands themselves?

When considering which bands were thuggish, the author concedes that, in pre-fame days, it was hard to beat Lennon. Constantly in trouble at school, known as a local juvenile delinquent, even Paul McCartney's father would warn, "he'll get you in trouble son." Interestingly, the author also notes that the Stones came from more stable and prosperous homes; their background much more middle-class than the Beatles and their prospects, had success not arrived, better than that of the Liverpool group which had virtually abandoned their education to play in a band (for example, McCartney failed to sit his Art A Level, as he was in Scotland backing Johnny Gentle at the time).

It is interesting to read that, from when they first met, the two bands became firm friends. A witness states that when the Rolling Stones took the Beatles to their filthy flat, rather than being shocked, Paul McCartney's face said that the accommodation was something he was all too familiar with (as he spent his first Hamburg trip in an unheated, unlit room next to a toilet, that was undoubtedly true). Still, rather than attempting to maintain the top spot, to their credit George Harrison told Dick Rowe of Decca (the man who infamously, "turned down the Beatles") to sign the Stones. Rowe would not make such a mistake again and duly gave them a recording contract. John and Paul also gave them a song, when they were desperate for a follow up to their first single, and encouraged Mick and Keith in their song writing. Song writing also features in the Stones shifting balance of power, as Brian Jones seemed unable to successfully come up with songs and his attempts were derided by the band.

Although the Beatles always outsold the Stones by a huge margin, the Beatles would often resent the Stones more anti-establishment persona. This book follows them through the Sixties - touring, drugs busts and music. Andrew Loog Oldham states that John and Paul saved the Stones own attempted Sixties anthem, "We Love You" when attending one of the desultory recording sessions and gave the Stones, "another major lesson from the guv'nors as to what this recording thing was all about." So, did the Stones emulate the Beatles? Did they, as Lennon ranted in his infamous Rolling Stones interview with Jann Wenner, imitate the Beatles, despite not being, "in the same class"? In some ways, it seems the Stones were overshadowed during the Sixties, and were perhaps more aware, or bothered by, the comparisons than the Beatles were.

This interesting read follows both groups through the Sixties to the Beatles break up and looks at the parellels in their careers. It also comments on the undeniable fact that the Beatles have enhanced their legacy by not reforming. If the Stones had broken up, it is possible that they would also be treated with more reverence. Undoubtedly, both bands helped each other during the Sixties in many ways and their music has stood the test of time. However, although they certainly did not dislike each other, and cannily arranged record releases not to clash, so reducing the competition between them to both bands advantage, there is certainly a perception that they were somehow pitted against each other. In the mid Sixties you had to be either a fan of the Beatles or the Stones and you were defined by your choice. Whichever is your favourite band, you can rest assured that their music will last forever and that it is now perfectly acceptable to like both.

[Gaylord Dold · Rating 4 out of 5]

McMillian, John. Beatles vs. Stones, Simon and Schuster, New York 2014
(304pp. $26)

Before they were the Beatles they were four teenage “scousers” from Liverpool who seemed unlikely to be remembered by anyone. Save for Ringo who lived in bone-crushing poverty and possessed a genuinely sweet nature, the lads were profoundly working-class and also juvenile delinquents who dressed in black, slicked their hair, smoked cigarettes, and did petty crimes. Lennon was the only one who grew up in a home with indoor plumbing, and he was unequivocally a thug, pocketing change from the church collection box, pulling down girls’ underpants, bullying his way to the position of “King Pin” of an urchin gang--- gambling, picking fights, setting fires and vandalizing phone booths. He could be spectacularly cruel, an abnormal cad around women, with a bad temper exacerbated by alcohol. His best childhood friend, Pete Shotton, thought him “bad news” headed for Skid Row.

The Stones by contrast, would have thought of “scousers” with derision, a natural attitude given England’s geographical prejudices and class pretense. To a man, the five were from southern England on the outskirts of London and two, Jagger and Richards, grew up in middling prosperity. Jagger’s well-educated father was a schoolmaster, and their three-bedroom home had a name: “Newlands”. They vacationed in Spain and St. Tropez. Even Richards, an eventual heroin addict and reverse snob, came from Dartford, and attended the same primary school as his mate, Jagger. Although working class, Charlie Watts worked as a graphic designer, while Charlie Wyman, considerably older than the other Stones, sold clothes in a department store and played bass semiprofessionally. Unlike those Liverpudlian scousers, the Stones could expect to be remembered for something.

Of course, they all will be remembered by everybody, forever. And John McMillian’s rich, engaging, and thoroughly researched new book is a grand story, maybe, except for the story of Louis Armstrong and jazz, the most important musical story of the twentieth century. McMillian is an assistant professor of history at Georgia State University. Beatles vs. Stones displays the sure professional touch of a serious historian. His use of obscure teen magazines, offbeat underground newspapers, and inside-the-band accounts, animates a “you are there”, Mailer-style knowledge. That, coupled with what can only be called a journalist’s sure nose for noise, makes Beatles vs. Stones that most precious thing---a prize potboiler with the poise and crescendo of first-rate cultural history.

Most of all, Beatles vs. Stones is the story of artistic creation which, when melded with skillful public relations and advertising, makes for mass popularity. It didn’t hurt that society was ready for them and had been softened up by the beatniks, rhythm and blues, and Elvis. It didn’t hurt that John and Paul were enormously, almost ridiculously, talented. It didn’t hurt that the scruffy Beatles played thousands of hours of live music in dank quayside bars in Hamburg, and wound by up by 1962 playing every night at the Cavern in Liverpool, building their craft---superior musicianship, two part harmony, two-part unison, then three part harmony, always, in the words of their engineer Geoff Emerick, in tune even on first takes and amid the screams of live audiences.

For the Stones, the way up came through live performance as well. They played grimy bars in Richmond, then got a job at a blues joint run by Georgio Gomelsky, a Soviet-born, Swiss educated, London transplant who promoted raw R and B, first in central London, then on the outskirts. Brian Jones, the first Stones front man, pleaded with Gomelsky to take them on. He did, and the Stones built a following, expanded their repertoire, and, encouraged by John and Paul, began to write for themselves.

In reality, there was no Beatles versus Stones, a fact McMillian makes clear. John and Paul helped and encouraged Mick and Keith. Mick and Keith were in the dugout at Shea in 1964, just after Ed Sullivan. The bands played together on the same bill at Albert Hall. Sometimes they had jealousies, ones natural to competing talents. But they were friends, and friendly, everybody rolling in money, girls and fame. McMillian’s book also brings to light a deep trove of music business lore and craft, recording techniques, management styles, and the evolution of rock fashion, showing how each band, and in some cases, each individual, evolved amid the cultural chaos. Amusingly, the Beatles----rough, uneducated working class scousers, eventually emerged with a clean-cut image appealing to young girls; the Stones, solidly middle class and educated, cultivated a rough edged, even violent image, appealing mainly to young men.

No matter the image, together these two bands produced twelve or so of the most exciting albums of rock music ever made---Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper’s….The Stones’ run of Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street (1968-72), all this brilliant rock coming at us just when we were young and ready.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure if the author would like for me to call his book 'breezy' but that's what it is. Mainly a treatise on how both bands came about and subsequently viewed each other, the book is a quick read. As a previous commenter stated, the most informational parts of the book are how each band's manager shaped and directed their respective charges in the 1960s. As McMillian writes, in the early days one was either a Beatles person or a Stones person. Today that seems a bit trite as any discerning (or un-discerning) lover of rock and roll can like both bands equally well.
To that point, I assume most who have a working knowledge of the history of the 1960s know that the Beatles were more important in knocking down barriers for other British acts. And yes, John Lennon always thought the Stones imitated the Beatles, and even immortalized that thought in his own song, "Dig a Pony".
The book speeds up once the 70s and 80s are reached, naturally because the Beatles were no more. However, the author should have been a little more specific when praising the Stones hugely successful Steel Wheels tour of 1989, by mentioning that at exactly the same time, Paul McCartney embarked on his own World Tour of 1989-90 which was even more massive and more lucrative than Steel Wheels.

[John Porcellino · Rating 4 out of 5]

This easy, breezy, entertaining read follows the trajectories of these two bands from their original meeting shortly after the Beatles relocated to London from Liverpool, through their joint misadventures with Allen Klein, and up to the Beatles eventual dissolution (with a quick look at the Stones' post-Beatles history).

I've been reading about the Beatles since I was 12, and this book offered me a few new stories and perspectives. I enjoyed it a lot.

The author has written in the past about the Leftist political climate of the 60's, and perhaps the most interesting section, to me, was the one in which he recounts the reactions over time of the radical youth movement to the two bands, from idolatry to rejection.

And in case you're wondering, the Beatles win.

[Courtney Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

The best part of this book came when McMillian played to his strengths and explained the politics of both bands, busting at the notion in the late '60s that the Stones were a more politically active and involved group than the Beatles.

[Timothy Hoiland · Rating 4 out of 5]

Verdict: Beatles win.

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

(nb: I received an advance review copy of this book from the publisher via Edelweiss)

Beatles or Stones? I can’t even ponder how many of those once-popular Internet memes have asked that question. Sure enough, though, there it is among the twenty or thirty “getting-to-know you” questions. “Have you ever had surgery?” “What brand of toothpaste do you use?” “Beatles or Stones?”

In the 1960’s, it was even more common, and far more relevant. The Beatles were cuddly and parent-approvable, at least in the beginning. The Rolling Stones represented danger and darkness, oozing an oily sexuality that parents were certain would cause their teenyboppers suddenly to become government-overthrowing strumpets.

Neither was true, of course—these were just two very talented rock n roll bands who changed the face of music, and had huge success doing so.

John McMillian’s excellent new book, “Beatles vs. Stones” doesn’t try to answer the age-old question from a musical standpoint. It is moot, after all. The Beatles broke up forty-three years ago, while The Rolling Stones are nearly seventy and still touring. The Beatles left basically eight years-worth of recordings, while The Stones recorded for decades (though some would argue they should have stopped earlier). We'll never know what the Beatles would have done had they stayed together, and now that two of the four Beatles have died, there can't be any reunion.

What McMillian does is compare the behind-the-scenes machinations between the Fab Four and The Stones. The bands were hardly enemies. In the early 1960’s, they were quite friendly. John Lennon and Paul McCartney actually gave the nascent Stones a song to help them out. They competed for the same audience, of course, but that didn’t fuel personal or group animosity.

“Beatles vs. Stones” details how the bands started the British Invasion. The Beatles were the tighter band, a product of their relentless gigging in Germany, and they’d become songwriters. With their bright harmonies, matching suits, and mom-friendly smiles, the Fab Four took off like a rocket. The Stones were still covering American blues. They were true to their roots, yes, but it took them longer to catch fire. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards had not become the excellent songwriters they would eventually be, and the band's apparent sullenness was anathema to both parents and TV producers.

Interestingly, the bands’s disparate images—the “good” Beatles vs. the “evil” Stones—were encouraged by management. The seemingly angelic Beatles were well-acquainted with amphetamines and weed from their years in Germany, and the seemingly evil Stones were hardly smack-addled drug fiends, at least not at first. McMillian presents numerous first-hand accounts of what happened behind both bands, from their acquaintanceship, to their record labels, and their respective managers—Brian Epstein for the Beatles, and Andrew Oldham for the Stones. Each band just wanted to make music. They left the backstage stuff to the suits.

As it happened, there was a great deal of “backstage stuff,” and this book provides a sharp picture of how it affected these two seminal rock bands. “Beatles vs. Stones” touches on music, but this is not an argument over which band’s output was superior. Rather, it’s about two very talented rock bands whose management took them in different directions. McMillian covers their part in the music business, how they changed it, and how it changed them. It is also a very interesting read.

Besides, the musical question “Which band is better: the Beatles or the Stones?” is a moot one here in the Twenty-First Century.

Seriously. Hands down, it was The Stones during the Mick Taylor years. Period.

I’m just kidding…sorta.

Highly Recommended

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 2 out of 5]

Review title: Not much masquerading as something

The title might suck you in like it did me in this intertwined thumbnail parallel sketch of the careers of the Beaches and the Rolling Stones. After all, I am just old enough to remember when that was a question that might seriously be posed to a fan of rock and roll music, because the answer to the question meant something about what you thought about music and life.

But after making his thesis statement McMillian really has little more to go on than the basic broad brush histories of the two groups. At the risk of spoiling the book for you, but in the interest of saving you the couple of hours of reading you might otherwise waste, here is the whole of his thesis: The four Beatles, while marketed as cute, cuddly, middle class clean cut boys, were actually from rough hewn lower class backgrounds in Liverpool, while the surly, scary, and scandalous Stones were actually wealthier, better educated, middle class London youths. The rest is just episodic parallel pastiches from secondary sources. And even even these seem poorly chosen to prove the argument. For example, the Stones Altamont concert where Hells Angels guarding the stage killed one concert fan and attacked many more gets just a couple short paragraphs, while Charles Manson's pathological obsession with the Beatles White Album and his pathetic attempts to establish himself as a hanger on in the era s pop music scene are not mentioned at all.

This isn't a disaster by any means and you won't hate yourself in the morning after reading this book, but neither will it engage you with interesting insights or leave you pondering new possibilities about what was or might have been. And maybe my blase review says more about my cynical 21st century expectation that of course that good boys vs. bad boys pose was all just that--a marketing ploy; didn't we already know this? McMillian never really gives any in depth history of the marketing machines behind the groups, or serious argument about how the Beatles and Stones were the nexus for transitioning pop music from its "pure" artistic roots into cynical modern corporate sponsorship and marketing.

[Nina · Rating 4 out of 5]

Attempts to dissect the decades old controversy, “Beatles or Stones.” McMillian, an historian, presents a well-researched discussion of the media contrived rivalry between the two groups. He also gives an interesting expose of the difference between the reality and the marketing; the Beatles, a rough-and-tumble bunch from northern England, were presented to the world as clean-cut, innocent youth, while the Stones, from middle-class upbringing and above-average educational opportunities, were portrayed as rowdy rebels.

The book is well-researched and fairly evenly portrayed. McMillian gives plenty of detail on the emotional take behind the Beatles or Stones question. In the 60s, the question wasn’t as much about musical merit as it was about emotional reaction to the music. Those who identified as outsiders handily answered “Stones,” while certainly acknowledging the amazing lyrics, arrangements, and harmonies of the Beatles. Beatles albums were music to snog by; Stones records made you want to jump up and revolt. Beatles music was for introspection; Stones were blasted out of the car radio.

I am an avid reader of rock memoirs and biographies. This is a welcome addition to my collection. Everything presented confirms my personal answer to the question, which hasn’t wavered since the 60s.

[Matt Lohr · Rating 4 out of 5]

Don't let the title of John McMillian's book fool you. This book is NOT about deciding who is better among arguably the two greatest bands in the history of rock music. Instead, McMillian examines the complex ups and downs of the relationship between Mssrs. Lennon, Jagger, McCartney, Richards, et al., and finds intriguing and intelligent revelations about the bands' relationships to sex, money, political engagement, art, drugs, and of course music. McMillian is willing to be unsparing in his depictions of John Lennon's occasional nastiness and brutish ways; Brian Jones's paranoia and naked envy of the Beatles' celebrity; the Stones' sometimes willingness to chase trends that the Beatles had previously set; Paul McCartney's often-underestimated role in the breakup of the Fab Four; and many other exciting subjects. This is must reading for fans of either band, and it makes me eager to revisit the music that put these men on the cultural map forever and always.

McMillian states at the outset that he is not there to stump for his band of choice, even though he does have a preference among the two. Who do you prefer? I'm a Beatles guy. McMillian, I think, is a Stones supporter.

[Erin Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Starts out great, doesn't go the distance.

[Steve Casey · Rating 3 out of 5]

Familiar territory for the most part but the author spins an angle I haven't really seen before on The Beatles image. McMillian posits that their public posture as cheeky and relatively non-threatening rebels whitewashes a more 'thuggish' (author's word) reality. Likewise, The Stones' branding as greasy, ape-like hoodlums who don't wash their hair and piss on petrol station walls served to hide their more middle-class, educated, and an near-academic like appreciation of American blues/rhythm & blues. When The Beatles broke in the U.K. in '63 they were 5 years in the making, including playing 2.5 years in some of the roughest, toughest, and sleaziest clubs in Europe during their Hamburg stints and northern England jaunts. While 2 of the Stones were office drones and Mick studied at the London School of Economics...John, Paul, George were gobbling amphetamines, barbituates, all kinds of booze, and indulging in sexual escapades and brawling with the locals.

A tired Sixties cliché that one was either a Beatles or Stones fan but like most clichés that is just a lazy analysis. The young pop/rock fans in 1963-67 didn't segregate into camps no more than fans who had their favorite Beatle or favorite Rolling Stone couldn't like the rest of their bandmates. McMillian writes of the professional curiosity that the Stones had of The Beatles unbelievable success and really studied their moves closely- because they wanted their day in the spotlight too someday. Because "Pop outfits" weren't expected to last more than a year, two at the most, and the Stones being 2nd most popular at the time would want to be there when the No. 1's inevitably fell out of style. The one Stone who seemed to fall completely apart upon meeting the Fab 4 was Brian Jones, who abandoned his stance as an American blues/r & b 'purist' who put musical integrity above pop fame until he got caught up in a Beatles' fan girl riot- telling publicist/manager Andrew Loog Oldham "I want that!" (Oldham, formerly one of Beatles' manager Brian Epstein's in-house publicists).

A more apt title might have been "John Lennon vs Mick Jagger". Mick closely observed The Beatles moves and made the most calculated decisions- if they write the majority of their own songs, so will we. And we The Rolling Stones will have to bend their style more towards the pop charts while keeping a hold onto their more aggressive male fans by maintaining just enough of American blues, by not smiling for the press (egged on by Oldham) and by cultivating a sense of danger in allowing conditions at their concerts to explode into riots. The Beatle most wary of outside competition and most dismissive of The Stones' taste in music was John Lennon when he told a reporter in Melody Maker:

"other groups are climbing the r & b bandwagon...stuff we did 2 years ago in grimy bars and run-of-the-mill dancehalls...it happens in the hair styles as well...it's no good saying they are students who always keep long hair, we were students before we came to London and we didn't have the hair styles then."

Bitter much, John? In the Seventies, after The Beatles split and The Stones were innovating Rock Decadence, John and Mick would be out in the open about their bitchiness towards each other. But during the Swining Sixties, for the most part (save John and Mick) the two groups enjoyed each others' company; they had few others who could relate to the maelstrom and share gossip and new music ideas while in the eye of the crossfire hurricane of pop celebrityhood. They had few equals outside their bands who could (maybe The Who, The Kinks, Bob Dylan). They also had a 'gentlemen's agreement' in which one group gave the other room on the charts by timing their record releases. If The Beatles released "Ticket to Ride" in March of '65, the Stones would release "Satisfaction" in June and so on.

The biggest revelation I took away was evidence of Jagger's springing their corrupt and scandal-ridden "manager" Allen Klein onto the unsuspecting Beatles. Klein, who assumed this role after original management under Oldham couldn't satisfy the band's desire to reap more financial rewards from their record company Decca, made a great 1st impression. The Stones received higher royalties and a huge (for 1967) advance of £1.5 million. But when travel agents, accountants, bank agents, tax agents, etc starting calling the individual Stones to collect money owed they found out their manager was a crook.

When Brian Epstein died in '67 and the Beatles found themselves underwater in debt when their Hippy-Dippy Apple Corp business flopped in '68, who did Machiavellian Mick suggest to John as financial savior? Allen (de)Klein. The evidence is circumstantial but plausible. Why would Jagger be sending telegrams and communiques to Klein demanding money and answers about missing money while concurrently recommending Klein to The Beatles to help clean their business problems?

"Please allow me to introduce myself, I'm a man of wealth and taste..."

[Mona · Rating 4 out of 5]

So interesting how Brian Epstein cleaned up the Beatles from small town troublemakers to be made acceptable by parents. Whereas the Stones were all good kids with attitudes that Andrew Oldman decided to exaggerate and market as the anti Beatles. Only to an extent because in NO way is Keith Richards fake. The relationship between the bands are fascinating to me along with individual band stories and personal ones. I can’t get enough.

[Chester Dean · Rating 4 out of 5]

Los Beatles vs. Los Rolling Stones es un libro que simplemente no podía dejar pasar. Para los que no sepan, soy una Beatlemaniaca desde mis tiernos 18 años (o sea, desde hace 12 años). Cuando comencé a escuchar la música de los Fabulosos de Liverpool, poco a poco y como si fuera una misión de vida o muerte, me dediqué a estudiar su historia. La verdad, la vida de éstos músicas es increíblemente entretenida y llena de mitos, así que cuando comencé a aprenderla se volvió una obsesión. Así que, cada que encuentro un libro dedicado a los Beatles tengo la necesidad (física y mental) de leerlo. Y aunque a estas alturas ya sé todo lo que se necesita saber sobre los Beatles, me gusta ver qué se menciona en los libros, qué es lo que omiten y a veces me sorprenden con algún dato novedoso. Pero sobre los Rolling Stones no sabía nada, más que el hecho de que su segundo sencillo fue una canción escrita por Lennon/McCartney, y que ellos le recomendaron a un pésimo manager a la banda a finales de la década de los sesenta. De resto, no sabía nada, así que encontré ésta lectura bastante informativa.

En mi época de adolescente, las personas se dividían en dos tipos, los que preferían a los Backstreet boys y los que preferían a Nsync, pues en los 60's sucedía lo mismo con los Beatles y los Stones, o preferían a unos o preferían a los otros, pero siempre tenían que elegir uno. Ya saben cómo es el mundo de la farándula que se empeña en comparar dos cosas aunque éstas sean totalmente diferentes.

En éste libro podemos avanzar desde el inicio de ambas bandas y cómo sus historias se entrelazaban una y otra vez. Cómo comenzaron como músicos, sus vidas antes de la fama, y todo eso que una biografía TIENE que tener para llamarse una buena biografía. Con respecto a los Beatles, puedo decir que contiene información veraz (existen millones de libros que se inventan sus propias historias totalmente ficticias) sobre los Stones no podría asegurar, pero si el autor fue confiable con los Beatles, no encuentro porqué inventaría cosas con respecto a los Stones, así que lo considero un buen libro con información fiable. No encontrarán historias inventadas entre las páginas.

Lo que me gustó mucho, es que el autor de una anécdota sobre los Beatles brincaba a una relacionada a lo mismo de los Stones, así que se va pasando de una banda a otra sin perder el ritmo, ya que fueron bandas que crecieron relativamente al mismo tiempo (los Beatles un poco antes, pero no les separa nada nada de tiempo). Y sí hay mucha comparación, pero no de talento o de si una es mejor que otra, sino, de cómo fue la recepción de los Beatles en Europa, cómo los aceptaron en USA, y cómo fue a comparación la de los Stones, lo que unos hicieron diferente a los otros, y las cosas que ambos hicieron igual, etc. No es un libro que te pondrá a elegir a una banda de otra, muy al contrario, desmiente todos esos chismes de que los Beatles y los Stones eran enemigos.

Me gustó muchísimo éste libro, pero se preguntarán ¿por qué entonces sólo cuatro estrellas? Pues porque en cierto punto el autor habla con desdén de ambas bandas, no sé, llegó un punto en el que sentí que al autor no le gustaba ninguna de las dos bandas, aunque claro, eso fue casi casi al final, y tal vez por el hecho de que al menos al final de los Beatles (porque los Stones no se desintegraron y creo no se desintegrarán nunca) si fue una guerra entre ellos mismos muy sucia, y tal vez le caerían mal a cualquiera. Pero que se reflejara en una biografía que en mi opinión debería ser imparcial, no me gustó mucho. Pero debo admitir, que lo nuevo sobre los Beatles que encontré en éste libro se me hizo muy interesante, ya que aunque sabía la estrecha relación que tenían con los Stones, no sabía qué tanto, así que al final, sí aprendí algo nuevo de mi adorada banda. Y aprendí MUCHÍSIMO sobre los Stones, tanto, que me dieron ganas de darles una segunda oportunidad (hace mucho intenté escuchar sus discos y no me terminaron de fascinar) y ahora tengo genuinas ganas de ver qué tal me suenan ahora que soy un poco más madura.

Y pues en conclusión, si te gustan estas dos bandas TIENES que leer éste libro porque una cosa es saber cosas sobre ambas bandas, es muy diferente a aprender cosas sobre ambas bandas JUNTAS y la relación que tenían entre sí. Es muy muy interesante. También, si las bandas te gustan pero apenas incursionas en sus historias, éste libro es muy informativo y te dará lo básico para saber qué tanto vivieron éstos grandes músicos en los 60's. En fin, lo recomiendo mucho y me lo devoré a pesar de tener una letra un poco pequeña (y eso nunca es bueno para mis ciegos ojos). Me encantaría saber qué les parece un libro así.

[Suzanna Strauss · Rating 3 out of 5]

The last however many pages that talked about the two groups business affairs and how they got screwed over by various labels/people etc was the highlight for me

[Abby · Rating 3 out of 5]

2.5 stars. The title makes you think that this book is another baby boomer music critic attempting to settle this hoary debate for once and at all, but in fact it's written by a historian who attempts to trace the course of the supposed rivalry between Britain's 2 biggest rock bands from their beginnings to the early '70s. McMillan notes that both bands frequently denied that a real rivalry existed and that it was largely a media concoction intended to sell newspapers. He convincingly documents that despite personal friendships among band members, they were definitely artistic competitors who watched each other's positions on the charts closely. Yet the question remains -- why should we care? McMillan freely admits that he is not a trained music critic, but a historian, and that ultimately makes this book a rather slim & not particularly insightful read. McMillan can't really examine in any depth how this creative rivalry shaped the albums produced by these important bands -- his analysis focuses more on the surface (cover art, single release dates, etc) than an in-depth analysis of how the bands influenced each other's development (although he does seem to be making the case to a certain degree that this influence was pretty unidirectional -- the Beatles lead and the Stones followed). The other major point he makes about the disconnect between the bands' manufactured personas (the Beatles well-behaved, well-loved, "clean" pop stars and the Stones the dirty dangerous hoodlum rockers) and their actual backgrounds is well-known to anyone who's ever read anything about these bands. I found the bits about the Stones much more interesting because as a Beatles' fan first & foremost I haven't read nearly as much about the Stones and only knew the bare bones of their history as a group -- the Beatles stuff was all very familiar. A fun & quick read but I didn't come away feeling any differently about the bands than I did going in -- might be of interest to fans who haven't read much about either band, but those who have won't find anything new here.

[Erika · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a love story of sorts, of a historian devoted to chronicling two iconic bands and an amazing era in music, and of the rise of two bands themselves: The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. John and Paul were raised in working class homes, and they always wanted more money. Why do this or that? Money , they each said. Did you know Mick studied economics and, contrary to his edgier, grittier image, he grew up in more socio-economic prosperity than The Beatles? Both bands started as cover bands, but something changed when John and Paul figured out they could write their own songs, not only for themselves but also happily sharing one with Mick and the crew. The Rolling Stones were heavily influenced by jazz, and their followers, because of Mick's androgynous sexual presence, were, surprisingly, not just teenage girls but rows of boys, too. Ultimately, both bands had a friendly relationship that only seemed like a rivalry due to the press, so this is a story not only of music history, a biography of two major bands but also the shift in marketing and managers who cleverly projected values and ideals -- peace! Love, not war! Down-to-earth grittiness! -- to better relate to changing times and attitudes.

[Paula · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was an interesting book, but I don't really think there was ever a true rivalry between the Stones and the Beatles, at least on the part of John, Paul, George, and Ringo. The Beatles seemed to be confident enough in their own abilities to be able to enjoy, admire, and appreciate the work of others, instead of simply being made jealous by it. Why, indeed, should they have been jealous of anyone? Were there moments of bad blood and pettiness between the Beatles and the Stones? Apparently, yes. But Brian Jones, Mick Jagger, and Keith Richards of the Stones, not to mention Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, envied the sheer creativity and, even more, the breathtaking success of the Beatles. For as long as the Beatles were a group, they were always a step ahead of anyone else on the scene. Their ability to evolve/innovate/experiment kept re-setting the bar for every other group.
I will say, however, that this book reminded me of how many Stones songs I really enjoy.

What I learned: That the Stones didn't even form a group until 1963, and made it big much more quickly than the Beatles did. However, I don't think they'd have gotten nearly as far as they did if the Beatles hadn't blazed the trail.

[Bill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mr. McMillian states that everyone has an opinion. Who do you like, The Beatles or The Rolling Stones? Most people can answer that question. Mr. McMillian lets you know that the differences may be less than they appear. He gives you a look at the state of the music business in the early 60s and what both groups were doing at the time. He looks at how much news was media created and gives you some looks behind the PR. He goes on to trace The Stones as they continue to tour and record music long after The Beatles had broken up.

This is a well written and documented look at a debate that has really faded by now. It is interesting, but not terribly relevant to music fans of today. If you are drawn to this book, you will enjoy it, since it has some new information and a slightly different take on the British Invasion of the 1960s.

I give this book 4 Stars out of 5. If this sounds like a book that you would like to read, you probably will enjoy it.

I received this Digital Review Copy for free from edelweiss.com.

[Veronica · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an ever-devoted Rolling Stones fan, I was really interested to hear how John McMillian compared two of the greatest rivals in rock history. And, I have to say, I wasn't disappointed. In fact, his unbiased approach was so convincing that I still am unsure as to whether he's a Beatles or Stones fan.

McMillian brought up both sides to the infamous stories, and I appreciated that (even the ones that made Jagger and the rest of the Stones look a little bad). I thought his take on the "what-if" Beatles future of the 1970s vs. the actual past of the Stones was very interesting. I had always felt that some of the best Stones' records were made in the golden period of 1969-1973. Not only does McMillian agree, but he mentioned that, even if the Beatles had been around, they probably wouldn't have been able to touch the "Sticky Fingers" or "Exile on Main St." AGREED. But I still like the Beatles, too.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title alone inspired me to read this. I remember as a kid in the late 60's, I bought a Beatles album in the record section of a dept. store. A bunch of older boys chided me, saying that only girls liked The Beatles. Boys liked the Stones. And I was buying the "White Album"!
Beatles Vs Stones traces the basic concurrent histories of the groups and the concocted and real rivalries between them. The rapid ascendance of the Beatles popularity required control of the band members activity and public profile. The Stones had to work much harder to achieve success. This book highlights situations that led the Stones to garner the badass reputation which in the long run increased their popularity.
It also covers each bands unique position in late 60's youth culture. Songs like "Revolution" and "Street Fighting Man" made the groups vulnerable to crackpot politicos and clueless mainstream media coverage.

[Kori · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting read for anyone who is a fan of The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, or the music industry in general. Beatles vs. Stones offers a glimpse behind the curtain at the business, lives, and personalities of (at least) the main players in these bands. My one "gripe" about this book is the ending. The mention of John Lennon's death as the final paragraph felt disjointed, almost like it was an afterthought, "Oh yeah, forgot to mention Lennon's death. We'll just drop that here so it makes it in." Whether to mention it or not is the author's prerogative, but the placement of it was odd, and left the book feeling unfinished.


*Received an advanced copy of this book through Goodreads First Reads.*

[Ethan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Meticulously researched, precisely reported, not overlong. McMillian does a great job of identifying the areas of overlap - lots of cooperation and competition and both - between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, without reducing the dynamic to binary extremes. He strips away layers of myth, making it clear where oft-told stories don't fit the facts while offering plausible suppositions in their place (always stated as such). Though the writing style is engaging and accessible, the book is best for folks with this particular narrow interest - it's not intended as a general introduction to either band.

[Caroline Elfland · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoyed reading Beatles vs. Stones. It clarified that though members of each group had their words about one another any major hostility was a myth created by the media. At times it seemed to be all over the place because the chapters were few, but definitely understandable to anyone with previous Beatles and Stones knowledge. I would recommend it to a fan of either group who, again, has prior knowledge.

[Karen]

* 14 Books From 2013 Every Music Lover Should Read

The rivalry of The Beatles and The Rolling Stones through the ’60s may seem like a tired topic, but it’s fresh and compelling in the hands of John McMillian. He peels away a lot of the conventional wisdom around the Beatles/Stones dichotomy and reveals the ways the actual lives of the bands differed from their images, and how much the bands and their managers played off each other to establish their brands.

[Bob M. · Rating 4 out of 5]

As an unabashed beatle fanatic, I was pleased to find several things in this book that caught me by surprise. And knowing a fair amount re the stones, mostly after reading "My Life", this book served ss an education. I loved that time for a variety of reasons, not the least of which, the music. McMillans effort captures it all beautifully.

[Anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great in-depth look at how the Beatles and the Stones are similar and different, inspired each other, and made music itself better. Any music fan would love this book - it's well written, well researched, and thoughtful. Most interestingly, McMillian manages to NOT tip his hand - he doesn't choose a side in the "are you a Beatles or a Stones person" debate, which makes this a much stronger book.

[Tollula · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a great book for any Beatles or Rolling Stones fan. It pairs them up, battling the age old question of who is better. In my opinion it's The Beatles. Hands down! RS were total posers and just followed what was popular and total fakes.

[Raza Syed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very interesting and well presented book. It dives into the complex and instantly evolving relationship these two greats bands enjoyed from the 60s to the 80s...
Written in a simple and easy style; fun to read...