Really enjoyed this piece. I’d heard some of the early Beatles/Stones crossover before, but you filled in a lot of gaps for me. The only thing I’d add is that the “Stones ripping off the Beatles” angle feels a little harsher than the history supports. The bands were genuinely friendly with each other. Any rivalry lived with the fans, not the musicians. The “Beatles or Stones?” question became a personality test for a reason — both bands were doing something distinct. However, the correlations, especially the album cover comparisons, were brilliant.
As a kid, first discovering The Beatles, it was Paul all the way. In my twenties and thirties, the pull of John was too much to resist. These days, I've returned to Paul. (Sidenote: The new Ringo Starr album is actually really good!)
"Maybe the Stones were making fun of the media for reading too much into the Beatles-Stones rivalry." - Good point to end your article! That was exactly how it was at the time. We loved the Beatles and the Stones very much. There was no reason to like one or the other, we could enjoy them both and the good-natured banter between them. It was a magical time and lots of small bands sprung up under the influence of those two iconic bands.
I am especially astonished that the Stones are still together and touring. Who would ever have expected that?
Ha I never consciously caught on the album cover similarities but I love it. Each band still has distinct differences in looks and performance and personality. Even with that little push of aid from The Beatles they are quite different sounding altogether.
Yes, I don't think the Stones copied the Beatles music, but it seems to me like someone on the Stones marketing team was really trying to copy the Beatles album cover art and the Beatles artistic direction in general.
Great story! Makes you wonder if the Stones would have made it big without "I Wanna Be Your Man." I suppose they would have, but it might have taken them a bit longer.
Yeah, I think they would have become great eventually - but I also wonder how many bands out there could have produced a great body of work if they had just gotten a lucky break. The Stones were certainly in the right place at the right time.
I preferred the Stones to the Beatles from their first appearance on Ed Sullivan because Mick sang Time is On My Side with what looked like real emotion while the band was so scruffy-- they appealed to my love of the underdog. Mick has said the Beatles were a massive influence that couldn't be got around. I also suspect they were heavily supported, and *may* not have written *all* their songs. Whereas I feel certain the Stones built up an audience organically, sometimes falling on their faces but trying harder. Brian Wilson called the Beatles "players" which is how I saw them- entertaining but not deeply moving.
Interesting about Andrew Oldham. I took a course with him called Rock Dreams in 2020, which was interrupted by Covid lock downs. Also read his voluminous memoirs Stoned and 2 Stoned. They are so detailed you can lose the plot, which you just made succinct. Everybody knows he was the mastermind of their early career, before they sacked him in 1967. He writes about being hospitalized in London and subjected to severe ECT which wiped his memory - amazing considering what a prodigious memory he demonstrates in his books.
I could go on about this, and I have a blog devoted to the topic. Thanks to ALO's 10 week course in Kamloops, BC, I recovered lost memories of meeting the Stones in 1963 when I was 12, a trafficked kid from Montreal's MKULTRA program. And also that Mick met my family in 1956 at a Tavistock children's party at McGill. I have been in contact with Mick in real life since 1992, never suspecting the childhood connection because- like Andrew - i was made to forget. I can't thank him enough for Rock Dreams--
Really enjoyed this piece. I’d heard some of the early Beatles/Stones crossover before, but you filled in a lot of gaps for me. The only thing I’d add is that the “Stones ripping off the Beatles” angle feels a little harsher than the history supports. The bands were genuinely friendly with each other. Any rivalry lived with the fans, not the musicians. The “Beatles or Stones?” question became a personality test for a reason — both bands were doing something distinct. However, the correlations, especially the album cover comparisons, were brilliant.
Yes! You beat me to mentioning the Beatles or Stones question! A way of determining one's character LOL
The next question is “John or Paul?”
As a kid, first discovering The Beatles, it was Paul all the way. In my twenties and thirties, the pull of John was too much to resist. These days, I've returned to Paul. (Sidenote: The new Ringo Starr album is actually really good!)
I’m a Paul guy all the way. Go back and read some of my posts and you can probably see that. And Yes! Ringo’s latest is pretty good.
I thought of you, here's a story from yesterday you might enjoy! https://danszczesny.substack.com/p/adventures-in-vinyl
Great post! Lots of record store love there. I just posted a guess of the band Little Bean chose.
I'm a John guy... I actually became a fan with the fallout from his assassination in 1980.
"Maybe the Stones were making fun of the media for reading too much into the Beatles-Stones rivalry." - Good point to end your article! That was exactly how it was at the time. We loved the Beatles and the Stones very much. There was no reason to like one or the other, we could enjoy them both and the good-natured banter between them. It was a magical time and lots of small bands sprung up under the influence of those two iconic bands.
I am especially astonished that the Stones are still together and touring. Who would ever have expected that?
I know, it’s really amazing.
In terms of them copycatting the Beatles, I feel that it was mostly the Stones management that was pushing that angle, but I find it interesting.
Ha I never consciously caught on the album cover similarities but I love it. Each band still has distinct differences in looks and performance and personality. Even with that little push of aid from The Beatles they are quite different sounding altogether.
Yes, I don't think the Stones copied the Beatles music, but it seems to me like someone on the Stones marketing team was really trying to copy the Beatles album cover art and the Beatles artistic direction in general.
Funny innit though!
I really like the album art comparisons. Next to each other like that, you can really see it. Cool article, eager to read more of your work!
Great story! Makes you wonder if the Stones would have made it big without "I Wanna Be Your Man." I suppose they would have, but it might have taken them a bit longer.
Yeah, I think they would have become great eventually - but I also wonder how many bands out there could have produced a great body of work if they had just gotten a lucky break. The Stones were certainly in the right place at the right time.
I preferred the Stones to the Beatles from their first appearance on Ed Sullivan because Mick sang Time is On My Side with what looked like real emotion while the band was so scruffy-- they appealed to my love of the underdog. Mick has said the Beatles were a massive influence that couldn't be got around. I also suspect they were heavily supported, and *may* not have written *all* their songs. Whereas I feel certain the Stones built up an audience organically, sometimes falling on their faces but trying harder. Brian Wilson called the Beatles "players" which is how I saw them- entertaining but not deeply moving.
Interesting about Andrew Oldham. I took a course with him called Rock Dreams in 2020, which was interrupted by Covid lock downs. Also read his voluminous memoirs Stoned and 2 Stoned. They are so detailed you can lose the plot, which you just made succinct. Everybody knows he was the mastermind of their early career, before they sacked him in 1967. He writes about being hospitalized in London and subjected to severe ECT which wiped his memory - amazing considering what a prodigious memory he demonstrates in his books.
I could go on about this, and I have a blog devoted to the topic. Thanks to ALO's 10 week course in Kamloops, BC, I recovered lost memories of meeting the Stones in 1963 when I was 12, a trafficked kid from Montreal's MKULTRA program. And also that Mick met my family in 1956 at a Tavistock children's party at McGill. I have been in contact with Mick in real life since 1992, never suspecting the childhood connection because- like Andrew - i was made to forget. I can't thank him enough for Rock Dreams--