how do the rolling stones differ form the beatles image and musical style?

Answer 1

the Beatles suck ....little pretty boys.....wish John could have got the hell away from that punk Paul....
Rolling Stones are the greatest band in the world.....

Answer 2

Basically the Beatles were a pop band and the Stones were/are a rock or rock and roll band. Whereas the beatles would have drawn more inspiration from the likes of Buddy Holly, Frank Sinatra, etc.. the Stones built up their sound more through the blues. The Rolling Stones were doing what so many bands coming out of britain in the 60's were doing, their own brand of garage rock, only they were seperated by their distinct sound somewhere between the classic rock and roll of bands such as The Byrds or the Small Faces, the blues, and the garage rock that would define the late 60's.
In Contrast, the beatles were appealing to the teenage generation, by writing lyrics and catchy tunes that were "glossed" over to make them more user friendly. They were defining popular music, not so much as for it's popularity, but more as the musical style for which pop would later become known. They were not living the rock and roll lifestyle that the Stones were, and this was reflected in their music. Even though drugs played their part in the success of the band, they were never considered to be as outlandish and downright rock and roll as the Stones were.
Hence it comes down to comparing chalk and cheese, with the only measuring stick being the popularity, and therefore rivalry, of the two greatest bands of all time. And of course it wouldn't be that way if they did not differ.

Answer 3

Epstein crafted the Beatles to be respectable and not scare the mothers. They actually started much rougher than the Stones, singing in strip clubs in Hamburg etc.

Loog-Oldham deliberately crafted the Stones to be the anti-Beatles, with their refusal to wear uniforms and their 'naughty' image. This was aided by Bill Wyman's (in particular) reputation as a pants man.

They actually started off with much the same influences - American blues and related music. The Beatles got these from sailors in Liverpool and Hamburg, the Stones through the university crowd.

The Beatles started writing their own stuff and moved away from these influences much earlier than the Stones, who continued a strong blues influence through their first dozen or so albums, and then added a country / bluegrass influence from "Let it Bleed" onwards.

Answer 4

Both groups are from England. Except the Rolling Stones have a bad boy image and Rock and Roll rockabilly image.

Answer 5

The Stones (In my opinion the best rock and Roll band in history) began and continue to love the blues. The Beatles in my opinion ( I never got into them as much) just made songs about I dont know they had thre own style which is good......they are original but their music made any sense to me...I can relate to the Stones, I loves bluesy music, Mick is still going strong....and what is he about 60.....No comaprision ,........great question....But The Stones Rule!!!!!

Answer 6

The Beatles were mainstream: let's be honest about it. John, George, Paul and Ringo got their launch on mainstream: they "Fab Four" were flippy dippy sweet n' cute. But they journeyed on into their own version of "Indian psychedelica" that signaled red flags to the band's demise....w/ not much help from Yoko Ono otherwise (but that's a whole different debate).

The Stones, albeit British as well, were banal and raw. They mastered a more renegade / rebel musical identity--something Mick and they boys have well crafted into something that still cooks and works to this day.