Beatles v. Stones, McMillian - B

                                                 "The Beatles want to hold your hand, but the Stones want to burn down your town." - Tom Wolfe.  That said, the early Beatles leaned more toward thuggery than the Stones. They came from tough working class backgrounds,  lived in council estates, were 'Scousers' from Liverpool, and spent two and a half years drinking, popping pills, and being quite rowdy on the Reeperbahn, in the rough and tumble port city of Hamburg.  Mick, Keith,  and Brian Jones were the sons of middle class families and lived their entire lives in the much more sophisticated capital city of London. Mick did well enough that he was admitted to the prestigious London School of Economics. It was their respective managers who molded each groups public image. Brian Epstein insisted the Beatles clean up their act.  The Stones adopted their somewhat raunchier approach naturally and let Andrew Loog Oldham tout it.  The British tabloids played up a rivalry that both groups refused to articulate; indeed, they were friends, spent a lot of time together, shared music and travelled in the same circles. They both evolved into more sophisticated musicians as time went on. But, "in the end" the lads from Liverpool were first: they sold more records, were better songwriters, and edged the Stones in creativity, genius, and popularity.  I submit the Beatles had a greater social/cultural impact, perhaps because I believe the mid-to-late sixties was their era and the Stones owned the more turbulent epilogue. That said, I love both bands, and  in the last decade I saw Paul McCartney's first US tour singing Beatles tunes in decades and the Stones most recent effort - each were awesome, unforgettable and touching. Thank God for the British invasion and this fine brief prelude to 'Tune In'.