Keith Richards on the key difference between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones
When it comes to big bands from the 1960s, no two stand out more than The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. If the bands that made up the British invasion were an army, then these two musical outfits from London and Liverpool were commanders and captains. It wasn’t just their music, but their general attitude, style, and how they marketed themselves set the foundation for a plethora of other bands who followed them. Despite their influence being similar in this sense, the bands had a lot of key differences, and that was kind of the point.
“There was no real future for a British band before The Beatles appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show in February 1964. That was the turning point, after which there was an avalanche,” said Andrew Loog Oldham, the Rolling Stones manager, “It totally transformed the possibilities, and as usual, The Beatles were the frontrunners. In music, there is The Beatles, and then there is everybody else.”
Oldham used the image of the Beatles and crafted the Rolling Stones based on whatever its counter was. Their music was going to be heavier, the charm was replaced with sass, and where the Beatles’ experiences with drugs and alcohol were kept under wraps until near the end of the decade, the Rolling Stones wore their rebellion like a badge of honour. While it might have been Ian Dury who coined the phrase “sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll”, it was the Rolling Stones who were living it.
As such, when you sit down and consider the key differences between The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, you can dig through hours of songs and interviews that flaunt them. However, if you were to ask Richards, one of the key players in the Rolling Stones and a huge creative voice within the band, he thought their main difference was much more surface-level. Leaving aside comments regarding sound, image and perception, Richards thought simply the layout of the bands was enough to set them apart.
Paul McCartney recalled Richards saying as much to him once. “I remember Keith Richards saying to me, ‘You had four singers. We only had one!’” said McCartney, “Little things like that will set me off and I think, ‘Wow’. That is pretty uncanny. And writers. Not just singers, but writers.”
It’s no secret that the Rolling Stones struggled to come up with original material at first. Many of their initial songs were recordings of covers, as Jagger and Richards had a hard time getting lyrics, music, and song structure together enough to call it a track. It wasn’t until Oldham stepped in and took drastic measures that their first original was created.
“When you start writing, it doesn’t matter where the first one comes from,” said Richards, recalling the event, “You’ve got to start somewhere, right? So Andrew locked Mick and myself into a kitchen in this horrible little apartment we had. He said, ‘You ain’t comin’ out’, and there was no way out.”
With that in mind, it’s not surprising that Richards would look at the creative dynamic of the Beatles and see that as a huge difference. The writing aspect was something he struggled with, and so the idea of having more singers and minds contributing to it will have appealed in a big way. Was it the biggest difference between the two bands? That might be a stretch.
Never Miss A Beat
The Far Out Beatles Newsletter
All the latest stories about The Beatles from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.