Skip to main content
Advertising

Originally published Monday, December 16, 2013 at 5:05 AM

  • Share:
           
  • Comments (3)
  • Print

‘Beatles vs. Stones’: Which side are you on?

A review of a new book that looks at the decades-old cultural divide between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.


Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Most Popular Comments
Hide / Show comments
Ok, air or water - if you could only have one on a deserted island...? MORE
I am on the side of the Möbius strip. I like apples and oranges, sometimes... MORE
He quotes Sean O’Mahony, who once published fan magazines for both bands... MORE

advertising

Book review

To modern ears the Beatles and the Rolling Stones might seem like two sides of the same coin, the twin prongs of a British Invasion pincer attack.

But there was a time when the press and music fans used the Beatles and the Stones as a sorting hat to pigeonhole musical tastes.

If you fell in the Beatles camp you wanted music that was poppy, clean and harmonically sophisticated. You were a Stones follower? In that case you loved blues, roots and the scruffy side.

While the Beatles played command performances for the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret, the Stones were being arrested for public urination at a gas station.

“They are no longer considered dangerous, but young people forget how much the Stones were considered enemies of society,” said John McMillian, author of “Beatles vs. Stones” (Simon & Schuster, 304 pp., $26), a literate look at this Great Divide.

“Parents, especially in England, loathed the Rolling Stones.”

McMillian is a scholar of the ’60s underground press and assistant professor of history at Georgia State University.

The conventional wisdom, that the Beatles were safe and the Stones were juvenile delinquents, was off the mark, McMillian points out, since it was the Beatles who in general came from the working class and the Stones who were the well-educated toffs. Of course, each group had a hand in the making of these images.

He quotes Sean O’Mahony, who once published fan magazines for both bands, saying, “The Beatles were thugs who were put across as nice blokes, and the Rolling Stones were gentlemen who were made into thugs.”

McMillian, 43, saw the Stones perform in 1994 during their Voodoo Lounge tour. He was studying for a masters in history at Michigan State University, and remembers he spent $100 on the ticket. “That seemed astonishing at the time, it seemed a huge amount to spend.”

The irony of today’s corporately sponsored Stones, performing in Enormo-Domes for the fat cats who can score the $1,000 tickets, is not lost on McMillian. Now, he said, it’s only parents, not teens, who can afford the cost of shows.



News where, when and how you want it

Email Icon


Advertising
The Seattle Times

To keep reading, you need a subscription.

We hope you have enjoyed your complimentary access. Subscribe now for unlimited access!

Subscription options ►

Already a subscriber?

We've got good news for you. Unlimited seattletimes.com content access is included with most subscriptions.

Subscriber login ►