Over the last few years a coupla friends and I have had heated
discussions re: The Beatles vs. The Stones. Basically it’s me (Beatles)
against them (Stones.) While I love the Stones too, to me they don’t
come close to measuring up to the Beatles; be it songwriting,
musicianship, singing, coolness, innovation, anything. Look at the leaps
the Beatles made from 1963-1969, and then look at the Stones still
working on their bar-band boogie woogie. A great band, yes. But better
than the Beatles? Camon. - XMASTIME
Via Sully we see a review of a new book,
Beatles vs. Stones:
Most readers will already know that the Beatles were cuddly pop stars,
while the Stones played their foils as edgy, dangerous rockers. Many
will have heard that the Beatles were in fact from far grittier,
blue-collar backgrounds in the North, while the Stones enjoyed
comfortable upbringings in London suburbs. But Beatles vs. Stones
tells a more nuanced story; it exposes the rivalry between the two
bands as part myth, part publicity stunt, part invention of the press,
and mostly an extension of their managers’ personalities.
Of course, all that time frolicking at the local bathhouse didn't really help out The Beatles street cred either.
No comments:
Post a Comment