Marianne Faithfull on why The Rolling Stones were more “sexy” than The Beatles: “Rock ‘n’ roll muppets”
For as long as there has been pop music, there have been rivalries. From the Britpop battle Oasis versus Blur to the boyband rivalry of One Direction and The Wanted, pop obsessives have repeatedly found ways to pit artists against each other. One of the original pop rivalries came during the rock boom of the 1960s, during which two of the biggest bands of all time were viewed as each other’s opposites. In one corner, the youthful rebels of The Rolling Stones, and in the other, the fresh faces of The Beatles.
Admittedly, this rivalry was mainly waged by the music press and record companies. The bands themselves were actually pretty good friends with each other. In fact, the Fab Four even wrote songs for The Stones during their infancy, in 1963’s ‘I Wanna Be Your Man’. However, as both outfits started rapidly rising in popularity, they were regularly competing for chart positions, airplay and the title of Britain’s most popular rock group. In the long run, there shouldn’t be any debates over who came out triumphant; The Beatles are potentially the most influential band in the history of popular music, while the output of The Stones took a steep nosedive as the 1960s ended.
Nevertheless, the arguments over which group characterised the swinging sixties rages on in the minds of music fans. Generally, The Stones were seen as more rugged and rock and roll than The Beatles, who had a reputation for being more sanitised and safe. This reputation for both groups permeated through much of the public consciousness and was confirmed within the mind of singer Marianne Faithfull, who was the girlfriend of Stones frontman Mick Jagger for most of the ’60s.
An incredible artist in her own right, Faithfull is far too often reduced to merely being Mick Jagger’s girlfriend. However, in this case, she was pretty well positioned to witness the differences between the two groups. After all, she clearly held an appreciation for John, Paul, George and Ringo, having covered numerous Beatles hits throughout her career – most notably ‘Yesterday’. In fact, she can even be heard on the recording of ‘Yellow Submarine’, so it’s hard to imagine any bad blood between her and Merseyside’s finest.
In contrast, Faithfull has every right to harbour resentment towards Jagger and The Stones, as their four-year relationship was hardly harmonious. Nevertheless, in her 2007 book Memories, Dreams & Reflections, the gifted singer shed some light on the differences between the two bands, writing, “The Beatles completely evolved from the pop business. The Stones began as a Brit Chicago R&B group and then lurched into a more raunchy rig than The Beatles ever managed.” Adding, “When The Beatles stopped touring in 1966, they were still the lovable Fab Four — they were rock ‘n’ roll muppets.”
While her descriptions of The Beatles might sound pretty harsh, especially for a band as groundbreaking and accomplished as themselves, it is hard to dispute the idea that The Beatles were a bit less rebellious than The Rolling Stones. Although they would go on to experiment with drugs and create some of the finest examples of psychedelia the 1960s had to offer, in albums like Revolver, when they stopped touring, they were still the baby-faced young rockers who had appeared on The Ed Sullivan Show.
In a final summation of the artistic rivalry that characterised the music of the ’60s, Faithfull affirmed, “The Stones were menacing and sexy,” in contrast to The Beatles. Although, in fairness, she did forge a relationship with one of them, which lasted four years, so the fact that she thinks The Stones were sexier than The Beatles should come as no great shock to the system.
