kylestyle wrote:Yeah it's funny how the media portrayed the Beatles and the Stones as bitter rivals and mirror opposites to eachother, yet they were actually friends with a mutual admiration for eachother.
The media had lot to do with that, but so did the band's PR people. It's a way of filling a niche. The Rolling Stones had to find a way to market themselves, so why not be the "bad boys" compared to the Beatles? They were lucky that society was ready to accept them during that particular moment in time. (Particularly American society considering how much more religiously conservative we are compared to the rest of the West)
The Rolling Stones were more in line with breaking down the taboo barriers that Elvis started to break in the '50s. (They would show him from the waist up on TV, etc. - then several years later Mick comes on and he has to sing "Let's Spend Some Time Together, etc.)
When the Beatles came out, other than their long hair, they were kind of harmless. (Matching suits, sweet songs, etc.) But the Stones had an edge, and I'm sure it was manufactured in the same way the Beatles image was manufactured. It helped them sell records to the more "rebellious." It is kind of ridiculous that the music couldn't stand on it's own, but image always has been a part of rock and roll.[/i]
And in the end...