Beatles vs. Stones and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Qty:1
  • List Price: $26.00
  • Save: $6.29 (24%)
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
In Stock.
Ships from and sold by Amazon.com.
Gift-wrap available.
Add to Cart
Want it Monday, April 28? Order within and choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. Details
FREE Shipping on orders over $35.
Used: Very Good | Details
Sold by Direct Book
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: No wear to cover, pages are perfect. Could be unread copy. Has no Dust Jacket. Eligible for Super Saver Shipping. .
Add to Cart
Have one to sell?
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See all 2 images

Beatles vs. Stones Hardcover


See all 4 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from Collectible from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Hardcover
"Please retry"
$19.71
$3.11 $3.19
Paperback
"Please retry"
$12.54

Frequently Bought Together

Beatles vs. Stones + Rocks Off: 50 Tracks That Tell the Story of the Rolling Stones + Tune In: The Beatles: All These Years
Price for all three: $61.73

Buy the selected items together

NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Image
Looking for the Audiobook Edition?
Tell us that you'd like this title to be produced as an audiobook, and we'll alert our colleagues at Audible.com. If you are the author or rights holder, let Audible help you produce the audiobook: Learn more at ACX.com.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 320 pages
  • Publisher: Simon & Schuster (October 29, 2013)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 1439159696
  • ISBN-13: 978-1439159699
  • Product Dimensions: 9.3 x 6.4 x 1.1 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
  • Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (27 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #84,412 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

An assistant professor of history at Georgia State University, McMillian has created what amounts to an extended compare-and-contrast essay by juxtaposing the careers of the two greatest rock &'n&' roll bands of the 20th century. He hopes to uncover whether these two bands were rivals or allies, and whether the Beatles were truly the good boys and the Stones were really the bad boys as each was respectively portrayed. McMillian builds a case for both sides of each argument, using existing interviews, an impressive bibliography, and some little-known sources. While the history of both bands is oft-covered territory, the author turns up some great nuggets, like the true origins of the Beatles&' name; police information about one of the Stones&' famous drug busts; and how Mick Jagger and Keith Richards wrote their first song together. In the end, McMillian has written an informative look at music&'s image machine—a powerful combination of media, marketing, and celebrity. (Oct.)

From Booklist

It was the greatest rivalry in popular music: in one corner, the eclectic pop of the amiable Beatles; in the other, the raunchy blues-based rock of the sullen Rolling Stones. But the truth lies somewhere in between, as McMillian notes, since the Beatles were not as nice as they were supposed to be, nor were the Stones as thuggish as their reputation seemed to indicate. McMillian maintains that the gap between private reality and public facade was humongous. In this pleasurable romp through popular-music history, McMillian discusses what set the two groups apart and what brought them together. The rivalry between the two groups was real enough, but so was their mutual respect. And despite appearances to the contrary (Sgt. Pepper vs. Their Satanic Majesties Request, or “Revolution” vs. “Street Fighting Man”), their recording output wasn’t always tit for tat either. Eventually each band went its own way. The Beatles broke up while at the top of their game while the Stones continue to tour. Fans of both groups will enjoy this musical duel. --June Sawyers

More About the Author

Hello! I was born and raised in Michigan, and I spent my teenage years in a tiny town called Essexville. Then, like everyone else in my immediate family, I did my undergraduate work at Michigan State University. It was the right choice for me. When I first started, I could not have imagined that I'd eventually want to go into academia, but I had some truly great professors at MSU, and they helped kindle some of my current interests. Later, I got a Ph.D. in American history from Columbia University, and from 2001-2009 I taught in the Committee on Degrees in History and Literature at Harvard.

Back when I was a grad student, I co-edited a couple of books on American radicalism. I still think that's an important and oft-overlooked topic, but truth be told, I'm not much of a radical myself. (I don't like being ideologically pigeonholed.) My first full book, "Smoking Typewriters: The Sixties Underground Press and the Rise of Alternative Media In America," (Oxford, 2011) is a scholarly monograph, based on my Ph.D. dissertation. My latest, "Beatles Vs. Stones," (Simon & Schuster, 2013) is a popular history. I examine the friendship and "rivalry" between the two groups, and assess how it was constructed -- by fans, the media, and the groups themselves. It's a short book, but I worked hard on it, and it was a lot of fun to write. Currently I'm an assistant professor of history at Georgia State University, in Atlanta. I love my job, and I'm excited to be getting started on a new project, on Garry Trudeau and his great comic strip, "Doonesbury."

Thanks so much for your interest. My email address is easy to find, so please feel free to be in touch if you like. Happy reading!

Customer Reviews

This book seemed to forget it's own premise.
michael turner
An amazingly well told story and one that even the non-music fan should read - it tells the story of the times.
Alan Freedman
They are enjoying the book, although they are more a Beatles fan than Stones.
Lisa P.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

24 of 26 people found the following review helpful By Chicago Bookworm on November 12, 2013
Format: Hardcover
Note: I'd give this 3 1/2 stars, if I could.

This is not the book to start with if you want to begin understanding the Beatles and Stones, but for established fans of both or either band, McMillian provides some fascinating details about their respective histories. This is also not the place to go to for musical analysis; McMillian is writing as an historian, and the (relatively brief) parts of the book where he writes directly about the music are the least illuminating, in my opinion. But if you want a close look at how the Beatles and Stones got established and made their ways in the mid- to late-60s, you'll probably find this book interesting, even if parts of it will likely also annoy you.

The most useful part of the book, for me at least, was the exploration of how Brian Epstein shaped the Beatles' early image, and how Andrew Loog Oldham shaped the Stones'. McMillian goes deeper than most other writers in his consideration of how that image shaping worked, and looking at the two bands and managers side by side gives a fuller view of the early 60's musical landscape. One thing this section demonstrates is how crazy it is to talk glibly about the "authenticity" of either band's early image. When Epstein met the Beatles, they were dressed entirely in black leather and projected a toughness they'd developed in Hamburg; when Oldham met the Stones, they were a mixed lot without a definite "look." Epstein cleaned up the Beatles' look, and after the Beatles achieved early success with that, the Stones tried it as well, before settling on the hard-edged look they made their own. It's a testament to the talent of both bands that neither could be confined by that early image.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
11 of 13 people found the following review helpful By John L Murphy TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE VOICE on November 14, 2013
Format: Hardcover
The conventional wisdom claims both bands loved each other; any rivalry was only hype. Historian John McMillian marshals evidence, gleaned from chronicles, biographies, interviews, and his own expertise as a scholar of the underground press, that suggests the contrary. While carefully allowing for mutual respect and admiration between the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, he reveals that the competition between the perennial "toppermost of the poppermost" and their scruffier, sleazier runners-up motivated the Stones to match the success of pop's lads from Liverpool, who were then driven to keep ahead of those equally calculating London blues-rockers, during much of the 1960s. McMillian examines the creation of the marketing images for both groups, and he demonstrates how they were both, despite denials by members, complicit in their Fab Four models and thug five poses.

He begins with the clichés. They merit qualifications but endure as plausible. The dichotomies emerge. The Beatles as Apollonian, the Stones as Dionysian; one pop, the other, rock; erudite vs. visceral; utopian as opposed to realistic. Sean O'Mahony, publisher of both bands' official fan magazines starting respectively in 1963 and 1964, crafted and softened their public images. He opines: "The Beatles were thugs who were put across as nice blokes, and the Rolling Stones were gentlemen who were made into thugs by Andrew [Loog Oldham, their manager]." McMillian accepts this as closer to the truth than the bands or their fans might admit during the next half a decade.

McMillian contrasts the rapid rise, within half a year, of the Stones from R&B idolatry and obscurity to a more accessible delivery of a style with limited appeal, the electric blues.
Read more ›
6 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful By Jim Serger on February 19, 2014
Format: Hardcover
As I completed this book as a 43 year old dad and husband--the first thing that came to my mind was growing up with a dad whom just adored the Beatles--after dinner he would put on his Beatles album and clean up the kitchen--this went on for years. But, not once did he ever throw on the Stones album. It was not until the Steel Wheels Tour that I had really dabbled into the world of the Stones. But growing up in a time where The Beatles were seen as the clean cut bunch as described in this book, and The Stones were seen as the razors edge--I understood the appeal of The Beatles to my family as apposed to the Stones. However, the author John McMillian did a huge justice in describing to me the reader how each group helped each other in the long run succeed. I felt a special link to this book for I never really gave The Stones a chance personally, for I always favored The Beatles. I am a Stones music fan, I have more songs down loaded then I do Beatles songs-- I feel very educated on the rivalry after reading this book and the world in which both groups lived in and flourished. The ups and downs were really explained in this book--great articles, great old interviews. I know more now about how they relied on each other, rather than seeing them as enemies.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful By S Riaz TOP 500 REVIEWER on December 7, 2013
Format: Hardcover
This book looks at how, in the Sixties, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were pitted against each other as rivals by the press, fans and, despite claims by both sides that they were not in competition, sometimes by the bands themselves. In the early Sixties, the Rolling Stones were portrayed as the Beatles polar opposites - the Beatles wanted to hold your hand, the Rolling Stones wanted to burn down your town, went the old quote. The Rolling Stones were rebels, the Beatles lovable mop tops; the Rolling Stones aggressive louts that no respectable father would want his daughter to date, the Beatles beloved by parents as well as their children. Yet, how true were these press and publicity exaggerations and what did they mean to the bands themselves?

When considering which bands were thuggish, the author concedes that, in pre-fame days, it was hard to beat Lennon. Constantly in trouble at school, known as a local juvenile delinquent, even Paul McCartney's father would warn, "he'll get you in trouble son." Interestingly, the author also notes that the Stones came from more stable and prosperous homes; their background much more middle-class than the Beatles and their prospects, had success not arrived, better than that of the Liverpool group which had virtually abandoned their education to play in a band (for example, McCartney failed to sit his Art A Level, as he was in Scotland backing Johnny Gentle at the time).

It is interesting to read that, from when they first met, the two bands became firm friends.
Read more ›
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

Product Images from Customers

Most Recent Customer Reviews

Search
ARRAY(0xa29a61f8)

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?