Beatles vs. Stones by John McMillian Read Free Book Online Page B

Though Jones still postured himself as the group’s leader, Andrew recognized Jagger’s electric appeal and insisted that he share in the limelight.
    The idea to style the Stones as the anti -Beatles, though—to toughen up their image and encourage them to act as surly and defiant as they dared—came a bit later, and in fact that was the opposite of what Oldham originally had in mind. Instead, one of his first moves was to buy them a set of matching outfits. Wyman remembers a day when Oldham“marched us up to Carnaby Street to put us in suits, tabbed-down shirts and knitted ties.” On other occasions, the band could be seen in tight black jeans, black turtlenecks, and Beatle boots. When the Stones debuted on national television, on Thank Your Lucky Stars , they were conscripted into hound’s-tooth jackets, high-buttoned shirts, and slim ties, looking every bit as dainty and amiable as the pop bands they despised. Wyman later remarked that in hindsight, it was“obvious” that “Andrew was attempting to make us look like the Beatles. From his association with them, he was well aware of the power of marketing, and he was initially slotting us as their natural successors rather than as counterparts.”
    The following month, though, when the Stones embarked on their first national tour (sharing a spectacular bill with Bo Diddley, Little Richard, and the Everly Brothers), they began wearing their outfits in a more slovenly style. One night, Charlie Watts unexpectedly doffed his waistcoat in a Fenland dressing room; eventually Keith’s jacket grew so bespotted with chocolate pudding and whiskey stains that it was no longer wearable. Onstage, the whole group loosened up, and Jagger took to chewing gum as he sang. Offstage, a journalist observed, they appeared in“a jumbled assortment of jeans, silk cardigans, camel jackets and sloppy sweaters. None of the slick suits sported by Bill J. Kramer or Gerry and the Pacemakers.” When the Stones appeared on a BBC program in October 1963, they frustrated their interviewer by greeting many of his questions with simple “yeah”s and “no”s. Rather than hurt their popularity, however, all of this seemed to boost their appeal. Their audiences were becoming more demonstrative and more raucous to the point where the Stones, just as soon as they finished their sets, were forced to flee their venues through the back door and quickly speed off to avoid getting mobbed. Without ever devising or articulating a formula for instigating a cultural revolt, the Rolling Stones began to stumble upon one.
    Put another way, though widely held, the idea that Andrew Oldham conjured up a belligerent attitude for the Stones, ab ovo , is a myth. First, he tried to smarten them up. But Oldham was quick—very quick—to see the potential in this new approach. By the time the Beatles conquered America on The Ed Sullivan Show , on February 9,1964, Oldham was actively promoting the Stones as“the band your parents loved to hate.” “The Beatles were accepted and acceptable,” he added, “they were the benchmark and had set the level of competition.” By contrast, “The Stones came to be portrayed as dangerous, dirty and degenerate, and I encouraged my charges to be as nasty as they wished to be.”
    He“made sure we were as vile as possible,” Mick acknowledged. “Andrew pitched it so we were very much the antithesis of the Beatles.” Of course, the Stones proved masterful at projecting arrogant, sour attitudes. Surely, Jagger was deploying his best Cockney put-on when he told an interviewer, circa 1964:“If people don’t like us, well that’s too bad. We’re not thinking of changing, thanks very much. We’ve been the way were are for much too long to think of kowtowing to fanciful folk who think we should start tarting ourselves up with mohair suits and short haircuts.”
    But Jagger was lying. It had only been a short while earlier that the Stones, eager for exposure, appeared on Thank