Stones Vs Beatles (Part 2)

Last week I started my discussion of an assignment given to first year students at The University of Tennessee, Knoxville in their The History of Rock Music class. The topic for the assignment was: Compare and contrast the family, educational, and musical backgrounds of the Beatles with the Rolling Stones. I found some of the "facts" stated in these essays to be rather dubious. As I stated last week I don't know very much about the Beatles so my comments relate mostly to the Stones. Here are some more "facts" stated in the student essays:

Beatles = clean, Stones = dirty
A lot of fuss is made over how "nice" the Beatles looked with their matching clothes and haircuts. What is not said is that up until the Stones, groups were expected to wear the same clothes on stage and whenever they were doing something the public would see. In fact, the Stones started out wearing matching houndstooth jackets. Now it seems strange to have all members of a group wearing the same outfit but back 30some years ago it was the expected thing. It could be said that the Stones put an end to all that. They may have looked scraggy but they were clean, Brian even had the nickname "Mr. Shampoo".

Beatles = good, Stones = evil
The Beatles were seen as "good" boys that you could take home to mom. The Stones' image was summed up by the Andrew Oldham created headline: Would you want your daughter to marry a Rolling Stone. The Students of Music 120 don't seem to realize that the major difference between the Beatles and the Stones is one of image. Both bands had images created by their handlers. This may have been a factor in the Beatles to self- destructing after only five years. It's much easier to be seen as bad than it is to be seen as good. Not that the Stones haven't had their problems with their reputations following them around. No matter what they do the media will put a "bad boy" spin on it.

A lot of the student essays note that the Beatles sang of love while the Stones sang of sex and drugs. I seem to remember some rather sneaky references to drugs and sex in Beatles songs. The only difference, really, was that the Beatles couldn't be up front about sex and drugs because of their "good boy" image. In this way, the Stones had a lot more musical

Go To Page: 1 2

Articles in this Topic    Discussions in this Topic