Sir Paul McCartney called the Rolling Stones a “blues cover band”. It is no mystery that according to the Beatles legend the Liverpool barons were better than the ‘Honky Tonk Women’ band. But in an interview with ‘The New Yorker,’ the former Beatles revived the rivalry that has held court even between multiple generations of fans of the two bands: “I’m not sure I have to say that, but they are a blues cover band. That’s kind of what the Stones are. “
Macca, 79, had previously bluntly said that he thought the Beatles were better than the Stones and added: “I think our audience was a little wider than theirs.” “The Stones – he continued – are a fantastic group, I go to see them every time they perform because they are a great band and Mick (Jagger) can afford the singing, the moves and all, and Keith, Ronnie and Charlie (Charlie Watts, the Stones drummer who passed away in August) are fantastic: I love them. Their stuff is rooted in the blues, while we have had a little more influence. Keith once said: ‘You’re lucky to have four singers in your band, we have one. ‘I love the Stones but the Beatles were better. “
Close by, Mick Jagger had responded to his colleague’s comments by pointing out that his band is still “lucky” enough to perform in stadiums, unlike the Beatles, who disbanded in 1970. There is obviously no competition. He (Paul McCartney) is a treasure. I am a politician. The big difference, though, is that the Rolling Stones are a great band that has been doing gigs for several decades and in different areas of the world when the Beatles haven’t even toured an arena. They broke up before the touring business really started. The Beatles did that concert at the stadium (Shea) in 1965, but the Stones moved on. We started playing stadiums in the ’70s and we still do them now. This is the real big difference between these two bands. One incredibly lucky band still plays stadiums and the other band that doesn’t exist,” he concluded caustically.