(Credits: Far Out / Apple Corps / Analog Originals / Bert Verhoeff / Anefo / Nationaal Archief)
Tue 30 December 2025 19:45, UK
When The Beatles rose to global fame in the 1960s, the world quickly decided they needed a rival. Someone to play the other side in a story of musical competition. The Rolling Stones never set out to be that band, but public perception cast them in the role regardless.
A four-piece band from the north of England and a five-piece from the south, it was a destiny that sadly wrote itself before either band played their first note. Sure, they both existed within the realms of rock and roll, but in all honesty, the two offered something wholly different to one another.
In fact, pop culture history proves how wildly misguided this forced narrative was. George Harrison got the ball rolling on The Rolling Stones by securing them a record deal, while Lennon became good friends with Keith Richards before the Stones recruited Lennon for their famous rock and roll circus TV special.
Ultimately, they were contemporaries, pushing the boulder of music influence up the hill together.
“That was a great period,” Lennon said, as he remembered the heady days of the 1960s. “We were like kings of the jungle then, and we were very close to the Stones. I don’t know how close the others were but I spent a lot of time with Brian and Mick.”
(Credits: Far Out / Bent Rej / Alamy / The Beatles / The Rolling Stones)
He continued, “I admire them, you know. I dug them the first time I saw them in whatever that place is they came from, Richmond. I spent a lot of time with them, and it was great.”
The truth is, The Beatles were a little ahead of The Stones in the 1960s. When The Beatles were bending the boundaries of experimentation, The Rolling Stones were still finding their feet as a rock band, so to speak, crafting their performances on the back of blues rock covers. It wasn’t until The Beatles broke up in 1969 that The Stones really started to become an original rock and roll band, ready to rival the globetrotting success of Beatlemania.
While Neil Young of all people should know better than to compare the two bands, he takes his opportunity to do so. But importantly, he does it through the lens of their best work, remarking how their careers were wildly different yet equally as successful.
“The Rolling Stones, now there was something, because they kept going. They didn’t just last for five years. It took them longer to make a great contribution,” he said. “The Beatles made their contribution in about five years, bang, gone—right? The Rolling Stones came out with ‘Miss You’ way after, years after the Beatles broke up—and when you think of the Rolling Stones, that’s one of their best things, that Some Girls album—and that’s with Ron Wood, y’know. They’d gone through a lot of changes.”
The Rolling Stones made the 1970s their own, just as The Beatles did in the 1960s. In that, they proved just how different from The Beatles they really were and carved a legacy that was rightly viewed away from the lens of comparison.
Related Topics
The Far Out Beatles Newsletter
All the latest stories about The Beatles from the independent voice of culture.
Straight to your inbox.