I sometimes see reference to the Stones-as-revolutionaries in the 1960's, but I've only seen references to it and not much actual "evidence" (so to speak) of it.

Examples:

1) In John Lennon's notorious 1970 ROLLING STONE MAGAZINE interview, he said, "I resent the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries and that the Beatles weren't, you know? If the Stones were, or are, the Beatles REALLY were."

2) In a 1985 ESQUIRE Mick profile, Jay McInerney wrote, (rough paraphrase from memory) "Jagger's voice may not represent revolution these days like it used to..."

3) And Tony Sanchez makes some "revolutionary influence" references about the Stones in his book.

Now, even Sanchez said that when Mick protested the Vietnam War outside the American Embassy in Grosvenor Square, it quickly deflated for him when fellow protesters started asking for his autograph. So Mick possibly protested for about 15 minutes or less before it fell apart for him; not much to base a revolutionary reputation on. (And anyone who wants to dismiss Sanchez, just focus on the Lennon and McInerney comments.)

Anyway, of the stuff I've read about the Stones in the 1960's, I haven't run across much—other than some minor rebellious posturing—that they did or produced or that others wrote about them at the time that would have prompted Lennon to refer to "the implication that the Stones are like revolutionaries."

What justified the Stones' "revolutionary" reputation in the 1960's? Their music of course!

1. Street Fighting Man.
2. Drug busts.

Well, Brian was way out front in fashion, the first to dress in feminine clothing, while retaining his masculinity. They were the first to drop the show business outfits and dress as individuals. 'Street Fighting Man' was banned in cities like Detroit, probably more for its title, like people thinking 'Born In The USA' was patriotic. Jagger's direct sexuality, such as staring into the camera during 'Satisfaction' on Ed Sullivan. He didn't even smile to lighten it up like Elvis did. Whether there was much depth to their revolutionary status, these are the superficial things that status was based upon.