I’ve always thought that the “Beatles vs Stones” argument was a pointless discussion. Sure you may have a preference for one group’s music over the other, but the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Then at a business event a few weeks ago I heard two people having this exact discussion.

I pulled this off the shelf hoping it might provide some insights into why this is something that is still discussed. Unfortunately it didn’t really. It’s more of a joint biography of both groups careers during the sixties that while it often quotes the bands themselves as saying they had nothing but friendship and mutual respect for each other it repeatedly goes back to its central thesis in trying to prove a non-existent rivalry between them. Basing the thesis on media reporting, fan magazines, and marketing ploys designed to sell records while ignoring , or dismissing, evidence from primary sources just irritated me. ( )

In a revelatory look back at a unique period in music history, John McMillian’s Beatles vs. Stones nicely lays out the rivalry between the world’s two biggest bands. While they respected each other, they were also each intent on outdoing the other. But, as McMillian points out, the Beatles always seemed to be one step ahead, with the Stones quickly mimicking a paler response to each move the Beatles made: “As Tears Go By” after “Yesterday”; “Street Fighting Man” after “Revolution”; “Their Satanic Majesties Request” after “Magical Mystery Tour”, to name just a few. The author covers it all - the Beatles‘ and Stones’ roots, personas, internal dynamics, recordings, tours, management, and more - in this dual biography of the bands, dueling for musical and popular supremacy. ( )

Were they friends? Rivals? Frenemies?

Yes, all of the above. And above all, they were the two most influential bands in the Sixties.

The popular view of the bands early on was that they were desperate rivals fighting it out for the hearts of teens everywhere. And much later, that it was all a publicity ruse, and they were thick as thieves and had no envy between them.

The reality is somewhere in the middle, this book says.

The Rolling Stones of course owe a lot to the Beatles, not the least of which their first hit, “I Wanna Be Your Man.” John and Paul finished it off for them as easily as tossing off a joke, and so there was the start of a little bit of jealousy as Mick and Keith struggled to write anything at all.

Along the way, John Lennon said the Stones did everything the Beatles did, just a couple of months later (and for awhile, that was true). Mick Jagger sniffed that he didn’t care about the Beatles, but it’s clear he sought their approval at times.

The Beatles hit it big and the Stones a notch or two below. The Beatles were four working-class boys who made nice for the masses, and the Stones were five middle-class boys who toughened it up for their fans.

It’s all here, the affairs, the drugs, the rumors. And the fact that the Beatles needed to go away for the Stones to show what they could really do. And the Stones came out with four iconic albums – Sticky Fingers, Beggars Banquet, Exile on Main St. and Let It Bleed -- as the Beatles were slowly vacating the stage.

The book also notes that while the Beatles may have ended too soon (debatable), the Stones have gone on far too long (affirmative), succumbing to all sorts of excess, disco, never-ending oldies tours, and all the rest.

Still, you gotta have both to have a feel for the music of the Sixties and what came after.

For more of my reviews, go to Ralphsbooks. ( )

Not a debate, rather an historical consideration of the supposed rivalry. An interesting read, especially as he recaps a bit of the history of the two bands, but nothing truly surprising in any of it. MacMillian's research is impressive but his conclusions are mainstream and ho-hum. ( )

I very much enjoyed this history of The Beatles and the subsequent Rolling Stones. Comparing and contrasting their friendships and influences on each other was both amusing and interesting. Some previously unknown material was introduced, but mostly this examination (well-written, almost scholarly, with footnotes) reinforced my feeling of why they were both my favorite groups. {Pre-publication copy via Nook download} ( )