![\"David](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/David-Crosby-1976-Far-Out-Magazine-F-1140x855.jpg\")
<\/p>\n <\/p>\n
(Credits: Far Out \/ David Gans)<\/p>\n
Thu 27 November 2025 20:13, UK <\/p>\n
When kids started to become increasingly obsessed with music in the 1960s, they essentially given a choice of two bands to support. There were The Beatles, who with their boy next door charm presented a relatively inoffensive option (that was until 1966 of course). Then there were The Rolling Stones<\/a>, a band who revelled in the danger that being a counterpoint to The Beatles brought.<\/p>\n Of course, there were more fantastic musicians in this decade and plenty for emerging music fans to get stuck into. But in the spirit of competition, it was these two bands who were ultimately pitted against one another. Their somewhat mirrored aesthetics, fuelled by captivating talent and charm, made them easy rivals for the media to ignite, and so, amidst playground squabbles among musical fans, the question was always, \u201cBeatles or Stones?\u201d.<\/a><\/p>\n The former was a far safer, more palatable choice, whereas the latter was a statement of rebellious intent. In fact, Stones guitarist Keith Richards put it best when he said, \u201cThe Beatles got the white hat. What\u2019s left? The black hat.\u201d<\/p>\n But why? What was it about The Rolling Stones that provoked a cautiousness amongst fans that allowed their devoted followers to be labelled rebellious? For all intents and purposes, they started out with the very same intention as bands like The Beatles and The Kinks.<\/a> <\/p>\n The obscurity of their talent was a large part to do with it. For one, they weren\u2019t songwriters initially, and so when they emerged on stage, performing covers of old blues hits, they weren\u2019t providing anything new for hesitant fans to grapple with. Combine this with the fact that their enigmatic leader, Mick Jagger, moved and sounded like an unfamiliar entity. His voice wasn\u2019t technical or classical by any stretch; it was characterful and wild, which for many was mistaken as talentless and offensive.\u00a0<\/p>\n But embracing this judgment is ultimately what made them the band they are today. They accepted their X-rated status and allowed it to inform their disobedient aesthetic. History has ultimately shown that the approach worked; however, within the tight circles of music, it garnered a fair amount of criticism.\u00a0<\/p>\n