Mick Jagger has politely clapped-back at Paul McCartney’s suggestion that the Beatles “were better” than the Rolling Stones.
Earlier this month, McCartney, 77, weighed in on the timeless debate during a phone interview on the Howard Stern Show.
“I’m not asking you to be pompous about this,” Stern poked, “The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones, am I correct?”
McCartney responded by telling Stern that he thought the Beatles were more eclectic musically and versatile vocally compared to The Stones.
“When they’re writing stuff, it’s to do with the blues. We had a little more influences,” he had said.
McCartney added that the Stones followed them rather than blazed their own trail.
“We started to notice that, whatever we did, the Stones did it shortly thereafter.”
McCartney, however, stressed that the Stones were a “fantastic group. I go see them every time they come out ’cause they’re just a great, great band.”
Just a couple of days ago, Jagger responded (in the most polite way) in an interview with Apple Music’s Zane Lowe.
“That’s so funny, he’s a sweetheart,” he said of McCartney’s comments. “There’s obviously no competition.”Having trouble entering this competition? Try submitting here
“The big difference is that the Rolling Stones have been quite a big concert band in other decades and eras, [whereas] the Beatles never even did an arena tour,” Jagger said.
“They broke up before the touring business even started for real. It didn’t start until the end of the ’60s.”
Jagger then reflected on the Stones’ first stadium tour.
“So that business started in 1969 and the Beatles never experienced that,” he said.
“They did a great gig, and I was there, at Shea stadium. They did that stadium gig. But the Stones went on, we started doing stadium gigs in the ’70s and [are] still doing them now. That’s the real big difference between these two bands. One band is unbelievably luckily still playing in stadiums and then the other band doesn’t exist.”