Beatles vs. Stones Part 1

We all have heard about the Beatles and the Rolling Stones sometime in our life.  But what do we really know behind both of them?  To most, the Stones are considered as the “bad boys,” while the Beatles are known for being the “good, clean-cut boys,” the kind of boys that you could take home to mum.  They both had different ideas of music, which makes it a difficult choice to compare.  Overall, based on opinion and fact, the Beatles had a greater impact on the music history of the sixties than the Stones had. But the Stones had a wider range of musical options that gave them the opportunity to reach out to a wider range of audience.   

            The Beatles came from the little city of Liverpool, England as working-class boys.  They have shown great dedication for their music because of that.  Even though the Beatles didn’t have the money to spend on expensive guitars, drums and other instruments, they had a very high devotion to what they loved: music.  The Stones, on the other hand, were from London, England as middle-classed boys.  They had more money to buy better instruments and to spread their music more widely than the Beatles.  As of the fact that they had a fair amount of money, it made it harder for audiences to take them into better consideration; people tended not to take their music as the higher choice because they had money and were thought to have struggled less to obtain a successful music career. 

            The Stones were the boys that were “good in bed” and had a stronger sex appeal to the female fans of the sixties (until today), than the Beatles.  They made most of their fans by obtaining the “bad boy” persona, and wearing outfits that didn’t match on stage (which was different at the time).  Opposing the Stones, the Beatles had a low sex appeal and were considered by most as the cute, innocent band.  Most of the parents thought the Stones to be too obscene and inappropriate to have children and teenagers idolize them.  The Beatles were the sweet, young lads that were accepted by all because of how clean their music and appearance were.  This way, the Beatles obtained more fans by having a “family-oriented,” yet exceptional reputation to all ages.

            The Beatles’ music and the Stones’ music were two opposite ideas.  The Stones had leaned more toward the old-time, rock and roll style of music and were influenced mostly by Chicago Blues. Their music was “heavier” than the music of the Beatles.  The Beatles had the bubblegum pop and R&B style of music.  They also focused on melody and harmony.  This made their music more suited to the audience.  But, both the Beatles and the Stones were both greatly influenced by the African American style of music back in the fifties and early sixties.  They took the African American style of music and personalized it to fit their musical choices, until they found their individual, signature styles of music in the future. 

            The Stones’ music wasn’t as popular as the Beatles’ music was at the time. Yet, they were very close.  The Beatles had many number one singles, while the Stones had record sales. The Beatles sang of love, while the Stones sang of sex and drugs.  It is not entirely true that the Beatles didn’t write songs that had the hint of either sex or drugs, but it was very indirect.  The Beatles were held back by their “good boy” look, which had to be kept in the range of “acceptable” music: no bad words, no obscenity.  The Stones, on the other hand, were not held back at all by their style of music and reputation.  They were already known as the “bad boys,” so they had nothing to lose of they wrote whatever they wanted to.